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

151–160 of 377 posts

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#151

Post by riffic »

3np wrote: post #94
meowkit wrote: post #18

> So I still need a DNS name, Ethereum Name Service (ENS) https://forkast.news/what-is-ens-ethereum-name-service-how-d... > After all, a programmer doing the most basic test of a web3 prototype is going to need to get the cryptocurrency, spend the cryptocurrency, and any application will require all users to get the cryptocurrency as well. If this gets abandoned quickly due to the inevitable technical failure “web3”…

Besides ENS, there is also https://www.hdns.io/

none of these will be resolvable hostnames in an unmodified desktop operating system or networking device with default configuration

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#152

Post by paxys »

v64 wrote: post #128
paxys wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown I have tried my best to read up on how all this is supposed to work but have come up blank. Is there a simple explanation - using zero buzzwords - of how I can run a site in the way you describe in the Web3 world?

A typical web3 site consists of two parts: The first is the smart contract code that lives on the blockchain, which handles the tasks that a typical server backend would handle (keeping and changing state, producing outputs given certain inputs, etc). The second is a web frontend typically deployed to a decentralized service like IPFS to provide interactions with the backend contract, however this isn't the only way…

For the site you mentioned:

- The hostname is resolved from Cloudflare's authoritative DNS nameservers

- It has a TLS cert issued by Cloudflare

- The backend IP resolves to Cloudflare's server range

- It is a pretty standard React front end served entirely from https://app.uniswap.org

- I can't say about the compute, but it's pretty obvious that the site isn't running on 1/5,000 the power of a Raspberry Pi for $250 a second (aka Smart Contract).

So, what part of it is distributed and resilient to takedowns?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#153

Post by Nursie »

carpo wrote: post #123
pavlov wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison between Raspberry Pi and EVM is off by many, many orders of magnitude. What Ethereum marketing likes to call a “global supercomputer” is slower than a 1950s computer built out of vacuum tubes, and running programs is more expensive than it was in 1955. (Programming ergonomics are also nearly punch card level.) There are very few applications you’d actually want to execute on a platform like that. And e…

That's a bizarre comparison considering the prevalence of Object Oriented programming languages and the ubiquity of that style of programming.

It's no longer considered the only way though, nor are companies selling software based on how object-oriented it is.

They did in the 90s.

OO is now one of several styles, and we no longer have the drive for OO purity we did back then - modern languages and modern versions of languages tend to mix up paradigms and make pragmatic choices, rather than insist on OO everything being the only way.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#154

Post by miracle2k »

Nursie wrote: post #144
throwaway_2009 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it's about censorship-free finance vs censorable finance. If not for AML, KYC and basically the fact you just can't really use cash any more in significant sums for anything we wouldn't have had to bother. I have 200,000 bitcoin, or maybe I have 0.2, no-one knows other than me. Good.

KYC and AML are considered positives by most people, being great ways to cut down on fraud, make banking hard for criminal enterprises etc etc.

Legislation requiring a backdoor in e2e encryption, such as WhatsApp, is also considered a positive by most people even now, but wait after it's been in place for 10 years, it will be as universally unquestioned as KYC or AML policies.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#155

Post by outside1234 »

v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

No, we get it. There are transactions we want to shutdown - child porn, bribes to public officials, money laundering, black market arms trades. There are transactions we want to reverse: mistakes, ransomware.

The gatekeepers are important and play a role. There are real arguments to be made about how we can make the gatekeepers more efficient, but not that they aren’t necessary.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#156

Post by [deleted] »

v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

[deleted]

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#157

Post by wokwokwok »

selestify wrote: post #66
Misdicorl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless there is a killer feature it enables, it's an implementation detail and I don't care. And I will gladly compare other solutions against blockchain despite not having the same implementation detail you claim puts it above comparison. And so will everyone else that isn't blinded by fanaticism.

Do you feel the same about Tor? That the anonymity is an implementation detail and you don't care?

> Unless there is a killer feature it enables...

... anonymity isn't a killer feature for me personally, but it is for some.

Anyway, the parent post's point is just that it's not clear what the 'killer feature' that web3 is offering is.

Without that, it's just expensive and pathetically underpowered compared to other platforms.

You can use it to do crypto. hm... ok. I don't have crypto, and I don't have piles I money lying around I want to throw away gambling or turning into crypto.

That doesn't seem to leave any 'Killer features' for me to care about.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#158

Post by SubiculumCode »

dang wrote: post #101
SubiculumCode wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes bloggers gotta blog, even when they just know a little bit and are just regurgitating an iteration of their preconceived notions. Edit: Of course you get voted down because you make a substantive comment. Welcome to Hacker News' Crytpo Hater Crowd.

Please don't break the site guidelines like this. I realize it's frustrating when you feel surrounded by a lot of people who you feel are wrong, but there's a guideline for that too: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As my post was one of the first in this these threads, the topic had not yet gotten divisive. Moreover, my comment about moderation did not regard my comment but regarded the parent comment, which I felt made a substantive contribution and got downvoted for it for, I am guessing, ideological reasons.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#159

Post by Tenobrus »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #149
v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

One thing I don't get, maybe someone can shed some light; what happens if some trademarked content is added to the blockchain metadata or on something like arweave. If a DMCA comes in - from my reading, blockchains or ipfs stores won't take the item down, but will make it so the address the item is stored at returns nothing. So, it's the equivalent of some entity controlling the DNS? Sure, the item at the address is…

No actual blockchain will be able to (even in theory) take down DMCA'd data. There is no mechanism whatsoever for complying with such requests, anymore than there's a mechanism for reversing transactions associated with activity a government deems illegal.

Individuals running IPFS gateways or nodes may be directly targeted and asked to take down data, but there's no mechanism for "the network as a whole" to remove data. It's exactly the same as bittorrent. So long as one individual in some hard-to-reach jurisdiction continues hosting the data, nothing can be done.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#160

Post by CuriousCosmic »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #149
v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

One thing I don't get, maybe someone can shed some light; what happens if some trademarked content is added to the blockchain metadata or on something like arweave. If a DMCA comes in - from my reading, blockchains or ipfs stores won't take the item down, but will make it so the address the item is stored at returns nothing. So, it's the equivalent of some entity controlling the DNS? Sure, the item at the address is…

So the way IPFS works is that the URLs are hashes of the content. If providers are pressed by DMCA they can stop resolving the content but as long as one person resolves the content it should be theoretically accessible. Potentially IPFS relays could choose not to relay this but that's ultimately a weakness of the client not polling multiple relays more than it is the network failing to be resilient.

So IPFS does allow DMCA and the like to exist and function but as long as a certain margin refuse to comply, the network continues to function as expected ignoring the actions of centralised organisations.

Post reply on HN