Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Web3 Fraud

usenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 377 posts

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#111

Post by notriddle »

endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

I think Web3 is a stupid idea unworthy of the name, but this is not a strong objection.

> I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot.

The lack of trustworthy entities.

> And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342...

> In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized.

Strong objections to most Web3 concepts can actually be derived from the idea that “there is no algorithm for truth.”

We can imagine an NFT that claims to be a deed for a house. We can also imagine:

* Someone with a fleet of tanks forcing me to leave the house, and then keeping me and my heirs from moving back in. Regardless of what the NFT says, by no means do I own the house.

* I might guess someone’s password and give their NFT to myself, and if it was government binding, convince the rest of society to go along with this. Maybe this counts as owning the house, but it definitely shouldn’t.

Political tools can live or die by being realistic, or by being just and fair. Etherium has managed the astonishing feat of being popular without achieving either.

So, how do we actually ensure that the database reflects the underlying social reality? That’s the part where all these supposedly “decentralized” applications punt, either by explicitly relying on a centralized entity, hoping the government goes along with it, or not having the database really reflect anything outside itself (a very small niche).

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#112

Post by selestify »

jjnoakes wrote: post #46
v64 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mostly" being the key word :) If you're self-hosting, then your server is a weak point. It goes down, your app goes down. The additional cost and risk that comes with using blockchains provides a platform for your app to run on that you don't have to manage and is highly resistant to being shut down. Likewise, there always exists the possibility that your server can be compromised and the code can be altered. The im…

There are easy mitigations for those things though. My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced. Still stupid cheap and easy.

> My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced

What? Assuming you live in the US, the government can swoop in at any time (provided they have a legal reason to do so) and demand that AWS or whoever's hosting your servers shuts them down. If you're hosting them yourself, they can raid the physical locations where you host them. If you're not in the US, I'm sure your country has equivalent security forces that would be more than capable of doing the same should the government find a reason to.

Good luck raiding every single Ethereum node in the world to take down a smart contract.

Also, you didn't address code immutability guarantees. You can change your server code at any time and your users would be none the wiser. The darknet markets, once compromised by federal agents, did exactly this, and stopped actually encrypting user messages with PGP while continuing to pretend to do so. A smart contract, unless it has upgradeability built in, offers just this sort of guarantee to its users.

Oh, and if your app deals with finance, and the US government (or your own) wants you to stop letting John Doe use your app because they just placed new sanctions on Mr. Doe? You'd better code that compliance feature up real quick or see yourself getting heavily fined or even imprisoned. Tough luck doing that sort of censorship on the blockchain -- as long as a single miner is willing to include that user's transaction, they're basically in.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#113

Post by seoaeu »

selestify wrote: post #47
H8crilA wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is great, but I don't need it at 10^9 times the cost. Imagine if a single red apple costed about $100M, yet it had rather unique qualities such as indisputable, provable lack of contamination. That's the kind of cost difference we're talking about here.

Good for you. Not everyone needs to use Tor -- slow and inefficient, can't even do a proper 1080p livestream. Good for them. But some people are willing to pay 10^9 the cost for certain guarantees. Good for them too, that such options now exist. Why the irrational hate?

10^9 time worse isn’t “can’t run 1080p livestream”. It is closer to “takes 30 years to load a webpage”.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#114

Post by abernard1 »

endisneigh wrote: post #65
mannerheim wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user Torrents?

You think torrents are a better way to distribute files compared to alternatives?

Yes. Because the files are actually there.

Twitter won't allow you to say what the CDC says on viral transmission. They won't allow you to say that men aren't women. They hide posts as "sensitive content" that show crime in the cities that people of the same mindset run. Their CEO doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

Blockchain is currently a set of underwhelming technologies, but in a world of 0 or 1 existentials, it's a driving force to allow the open expression 90s tech people said they wanted but lied about.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#115

Post by systemvoltage »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73
systemvoltage wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not talking about Crypto (I presume you mean crypto currencies). I am talking about technologies that enable centralization vs. decentralization.

I’m am specially speaking about blockchains, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and the like, not IPFS, DHTs, or improvements to existing internet technologies (mutable torrents, webtorrent) to support decentralized storage, discovery, or name resolution. The “web3” nomenclature throws it all together, which is annoying. DeFi =! Dweb

I feel the same as you do about cryptocurrencies and NFTs.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#116

Post by miracle2k »

kibibu wrote: post #45
kibibu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that NFT point to a comment on a central service though? Or would the NFT contain the actual comment itself? Is there a difference between buying a "comment on HN" and the text of that comment?

Checking the Opensea API: https://docs.opensea.io/reference/asset-object NFTs require at least one of two centralized services to remain functional - the original URL and the Opensea cached URL. So proof of ownership is decentralized, but the actual image is not.

People make this mistake because they think there is a "function" part to NFTs. It's a ledger, and you want to remember what media an entry refers to. You can do that by just keeping it in your community's collective memory, or you can use a hash of the file, or both.

People can then choose to value that ledger entry, or not.

Everything else, such as the ability of n app to figure out an image URL for the NFT, is just sugar on top.

NFT people will value a Bored Ape token whether the URL is valid or not - and they are entirely right to do so. The Cryptopunks don't even have a URL!

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#117

Post by skellera »

dexter89_kp3 wrote: post #44
endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

I don't understand what problem email can solve that mail cannot. Sorry to be sarcastic. I am still skeptical of most web3 use cases touted on twitter, but have personally experienced a few that have made me pause and be a bit more open minded. Personal experiences: - Transferring money was in seconds, compared to Fidelity/Venmo which took 3 days!!! - Very easy to loan money against crypto holdings vs stocks - Resear…

Transferring money is faster if you pay a fee.

You’re paying fees to transfer crypto.

That said, it’s free and instant with services like Zelle.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#118

Post by brandonmenc »

dexter89_kp3 wrote: post #44
endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

I don't understand what problem email can solve that mail cannot. Sorry to be sarcastic. I am still skeptical of most web3 use cases touted on twitter, but have personally experienced a few that have made me pause and be a bit more open minded. Personal experiences: - Transferring money was in seconds, compared to Fidelity/Venmo which took 3 days!!! - Very easy to loan money against crypto holdings vs stocks - Resear…

> Transferring money was in seconds, compared to Fidelity/Venmo which took 3 days!!!

This is a problem that can be solved sans web3.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#119

Post by gfodor »

This is a nice example of the tech consensus anti-web3 perspective.

Of course, it openly claims everyone promoting web3 technologies are scam artists, that it is a ponzi scheme, and that nobody in the space has considered "DNS and AWS are cheap, the EVM is way slow and expensive."

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which it is: the above claim, or that the authors writing these pieces are missing something. I'll admit I do respect the bravery to post something like this, lacking all humility, and fairly falsifiable, that will result in embarrassment if left up and disproven.

One thing that is interesting about these critiques is they mirror identically the early critiques of Bitcoin. And now, ironically, they take it as a given that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and are no longer going to eventually crash to zero, which was the claim made in these kinds of posts 5-10 years ago.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#120

Post by seoaeu »

brandonmenc wrote: post #100
selestify wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you. Not everyone needs to use Tor -- slow and inefficient, can't even do a proper 1080p livestream. Good for them. But some people are willing to pay 10^9 the cost for certain guarantees. Good for them too, that such options now exist. Why the irrational hate?

This repeated comparison with Tor is apt - barely anyone (relatively) uses it, even though it has useful features. This is imo the best case scenario with web3. Which would mean that most of the current "value" is a bubble.

The thing with tor is that it is only 1-2 orders of magnitude worse than the “normal” approach in terms of performance and so forth. Enough to be annoying, but still totally workable for a lot of applications
Post reply on HN