271–280 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never claimed it's the be-all future of software. It's got its uses and its uses are here to stay, that I'm sure of.
So... is Web3 not a successor to Web2 then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They said it's an apples to oranges comparison unless both things do . Which is absolutely correct. You could compare apples to oranges if you wanted to... but usually there's no point in doing so.
As I said to OP, no, it's not apples to oranges, you are absolutely wrong. It's comparisons of different points in the app architecture space, and that's normal, and not pointless as you claim. You can't wave away the serious issues by saying "there's no point in comparing them" Lots of things offer different functionality and tradeoffs. If you want to play in the space of "web app", you can and should be compared to…
And the current use cases are sufficiently different that it's like comparing apples and oranges.
> I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem (judging by this thread) to compare particularly well for most developers, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.
Again, do you think the same of Tor? It doesn't compare particularly well by most mainstream metrics. High latency, low bandwidth. And yet it serves a lot of value to a lot of people.
But then some smartass goes and says "It's completely useless tech, I can host a simple static website on clearnet for much less hassle." Yeah, duh, but that's not the point of Tor. Go use the clearnet if that's what you're looking to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Good luck raiding every single Ethereum node in the world to take down a smart contract. They won't have to. It's like putting absurd security on your door yet leaving the windows as open as always. If you ever want to move value out of your virtual economy and into the real, they can and will be there waiting for you, with all their unreasonable demands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no money or smart contracts involved in my scenario. I just want to host a random site. Put another way – is there a use case for Web3 which doesn't involve touting Web3? What is the "killer app" for the average user who isn't obsessed with crypto/blockchain?
If you just want to store and host files like a website, there's a few projects in that vein that I know of - Arweave ( https://www.arweave.org/ ), IPFS ( https://ipfs.io/ ), and Filecoin ( https://filecoin.io/ ). IMO these projects are aiming at a new form of sovereignty on the internet that doesn't/can't exist currently - the ability to have your data be permanently stored and accessible on the web. Google can deci…
Similarly, there’s a lot of mythology about content not being censorable which falls apart as soon as you think about it. People still have to follow the law in their country: if you upload a Disney movie to IPFS, their lawyers will send takedowns to everyone hosting it. Just as with other P2P services, anyone using it will be deterred by the risk of your ISPs cutting your service if you don’t comply with legal requirements but unlike its more efficient and private alternatives these services are both public (making it easier to track users) and the blockchain services handily provide a signed statement for prosecutors, which seems unlikely to be a popular feature for anyone who actually needs it.
That’s the key difference between the early internet and “web3”: those early efforts were building things people outside of that community clearly wanted but the latter is what happened when people spent a decade pumping money into cryptocurrencies in the hopes of one day becoming rich and are now desperately searching around for reasons why everyone else should pay a premium for their random numbers. It never goes well when the conversation starts with what you’d like to sell someone rather than what they need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would proof of stake mitigate ISP blocks? These still communicate with other nodes over TCP/IP.
Given the comment I was responding to, I was assuming that only a ban would be attempted on the environmentally unfriendly cryptos. How would you propose to ban all cryptos? We haven't even been able to ban torrents.
ISPs could simply run honeypots that in real time sniff out who is running a blockchain node and block traffic to those IPs. These nodes must broadcast publicly to other nodes to even function, so they can't hide the fact that they are a blockchain node: they are forced to peer with whoever else is... peering in the same direction, pun intended.
I'd love to know what gaps in my knowledge invalidate the above thesis, though.
As a 13 year old programmer learning to code in 2005, transferring money online seemed impossible, this was pre-stripe after all. A 13 year old getting a bank partnership or a payment processor deal seemed a bit out of reach as well. These days though, sending money online via stable coins like $USDC over a fast and cheap block chain like Solana, Polygon, avalanche, etc is not only possible but flat out inevitable.
And, Stripe now exists, so the problem is mostly solved on "web2", no? What does Stripe (and similar products) not offer that $USDC could?
You also don’t have to worry about getting your account shut down or funds frozen. I once worked for a YC company, LendUp, and we started off using Stripe for accepting payment but had to stop because the policies of their partner bank at the time disallowed servicing of our types of transactions. We spent a large chunk of time integrating with many different payments processors on and off, it was rough.
In summary, web3 has the potential to be and already is, cheaper, faster, and permissionless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly you couldnt explain at all what could be interesting usecase and resulted to saying "its not for you". Whats killer app of TOR? Well its TOR - its pretty clear proposition even to mainstream users it will be instantly obvious - the privacy is the feature.
> Honestly you couldnt explain at all what could be interesting usecase and resulted to saying "its not for you". I've explained again and again in other comments. As did the parent comment of this whole thread. It's really not that hard to understand, but there's nothing I can do if you don't want to understand. > Well its TOR - its pretty clear proposition even to mainstream users it will be instantly obvious - the…
Look, we all know how MLMs work. Just say that you’re finding reasons for other people to pay money for your tokens rather than accusing people of not understanding. None of your comments have included a compelling sales pitch and it’s not the reader’s obligation to help you improve it.
As a 13 year old programmer learning to code in 2005, transferring money online seemed impossible, this was pre-stripe after all. A 13 year old getting a bank partnership or a payment processor deal seemed a bit out of reach as well. These days though, sending money online via stable coins like $USDC over a fast and cheap block chain like Solana, Polygon, avalanche, etc is not only possible but flat out inevitable.
As a 14 year old programmer and tinkerer in 2004, I had no problem buying a Helium-Neon laser for an experiment and paying via PayPal. As an 18 year old tinkerer and hacker in 2008, I had no problem signing up to take payments via PayPal and running a little side thing selling home-assembled widgets out of my bedroom. And as horrible as PayPal is, cryptocurrencies have even more friction and risk.
This comparison with PayPal is perfect. The way I see it, ACH and wire transfers are to PayPal what cryptocurrencies are to startups and tech that is being built right now. The reasons why cryptos have more friction at this point of time is because the PayPals of crypto are being built and distributed. I see a future where creating a wallet and accepting crypto payment will be faster, easier and cheaper than signing up for Venmo or Square Cash.
The technology is interesting, but so far most of the use cases involve some form of illegality. If you want to use, say, NFTs for something legitimate, it turns out they don't really work very well for that. I'd looked at using NFTs for cross-grid ownership transfers of objects in Open Simulator. That's a set of virtual worlds run by several hundred different people and organizations, but using the same software, a…
This sounds like opinion written as fact. NFTs have use cases that don’t just encompass illegal activities and work well. I personally own NFTs that are used for governance in terms of a budding project’s direction and NFTs that are even used as subscription keys to certain alpha products.
Also it’s a little disingenuous to encourage looking at a contextless single data point indicating a collapse of a product without understanding other factors like there being a bear market in place for the overall cryptocurrency landscape
What if you just dropped all the ideology speak and just called them platforms? Theyre open finance platforms. Everyone building bullshit on Shopify’s platform is the exact audience that would be better off building on an open finance platform (the shopify apps that are sold to merchants). That crowd just wants to launch a product, have users, and make money passively. Thats what defi builders are doing on web3 platf…