The Web3 Fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#341

Post by DeepYogurt » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

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…

> Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown.

Or patched for that matter

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#342

Post by webmaven » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

notriddle wrote: post #111

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…

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

> The lack of trustworthy entities.

Note that trusted != trustworthy.

In security parlance a trusted entity is one you must trust, that can fuck you over (eg. 'Control' in popular culture, handlers in actual HUMINT, a bank that has your deposited money, etc.).

In that same parlance, trustworthy isn't really a thing. You can raise the cost of violating that trust in various ways (assets held by a theoretically disinterested third party with different incentives, reputational costs that foreclose future participation in the system, credible threats of legal action, etc.), but there isn't anything that you can do if the trusted entity is willing to pay that cost (or is unwilling to pay the cost of not violating that trust) to prevent the trust violation.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#343

Post by shagie » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

selestify wrote: post #339

uncomputation wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contract developer releasing the code is the problem, not verifying that is what is running. When a company open sources some code, we assume and trust they are not keeping a separate, evil branch running in production unbeknownst to us. If Facebook “open-sourced” their entire platform and infrastructure tomorrow, the hard part is not verifying that this code is what is running. The hard part would be getting Fac…

> The contract developer releasing the code is the problem, not verifying that is what is running. In a trustless environment like defi, why would anyone other than the most gullible put their money in any smart contract that doesn't have open sourced code? > When a company open sources some code, we assume and trust they are not keeping a separate, evil branch running in production unbeknownst to us. We assume and t…

> In a trustless environment like defi, why would anyone other than the most gullible put their money in any smart contract that doesn't have open sourced code?

So... this is a thing for techies only? The rest of the world that can't read the code will have to trust the techies that say "this is good".

As a not-JavaScript-devleoper, open sourced optimal written JavaScript is only slightly less inscrutable than minified or compiled JavaScript.

So, would I be gullible to put my money into a smart contract written in JavaScript?

Most of the world can't verify the code and will need to trust someone. I hope that isn't the password verification commission that calls grandmothers offering to help check out their bank account security.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#344

Post by smoldesu » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

selestify wrote: post #291

acdha wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 sa…

There's no compelling sales pitch because I'm not trying to make one. I think there's already too much dumb money in it already, and I sure don't want yours either. Those of us who want or need it will continue to use it. Those of us who don't... well then, just don't. You're looking for something that just isn't there, so you can sneer at it and show your snide superiority. Go somewhere else for that sort of validat…

Why are you being so rude to people who just want to foster a real conversation with you about cryptocurrency? When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you", and start making personal attacks. It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#345

Post by seoaeu » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

selestify wrote: post #173

seoaeu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I meant that with respect to blockchain specifically. So the relative costs are higher, but that's only a difference in degree, not in type. I mean > This is great, but I don't need it at 10^9 times the cost. Like I said, good for you. You don't need it at 10^9 the cost. Some others do. Why hate that a solution exists for those who do?

> Why hate that a solution exists for those who do?

Because from where I am it looks more like it exists for charlatans and scammers to draw more people in and exploit them. Also, why do cryptocurrency fanatics so frequently accuse anyone critical of them as being hateful?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#346

Post by Animats » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #281

Animats wrote: post #168

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…

Solana blockchain would be appropriate for your grid transfer as it can function in that time frame. You can also just do things asynchronously client side. NFT data is not comprehensive and doesn't include all subsets of that market, most of it is collectors markets. The Play 2 Earn space has nothing to do with collectors markets. This is analogous to saying Fortnite players grinding for characters skins are providi…

Bored Ape Yacht Club looks like it's using fake bids and wash sales to inflate the price. Look at the bid pattern for a few of the top items:

https://opensea.io/assets/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18...

A few small bids, then a bid 10%-20% below the reserve price to pump up the listed price but not actually buy. That pattern reappears:

https://opensea.io/assets/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18...

Someone needs to run a test for wash sales on OpenSea data.

Biggest NFT sale ever was a wash sale.[1]

[1] https://www.creativebloq.com/news/500m-nft-sale-prank

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#347

Post by smt88 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #293

smt88 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy-ish (far harder than using a credit card), but it's also: - possible the transaction won't happen immediately or happen at all - extremely expensive - stupid (if you expect your particular cryptocurrency to increase in value over time) - missing all the protections and benefits of a credit card

If I transfer from my Coinbase account to yours, the transaction is not subject to the vagaries of the blockchain. It’s more or less like transferring from my PayPal account to yours.

Are you suggesting it's sidechain? Or that our funds in Coinbase are pooled?

Either way, it completely defeats the purpose of decentralization, consensus, etc. Coinbase, in that case, is exactly like a traditional bank except that you're trading non-money instead of money.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#348

Post by selestify » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #344

selestify wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no compelling sales pitch because I'm not trying to make one. I think there's already too much dumb money in it already, and I sure don't want yours either. Those of us who want or need it will continue to use it. Those of us who don't... well then, just don't. You're looking for something that just isn't there, so you can sneer at it and show your snide superiority. Go somewhere else for that sort of validat…

Why are you being so rude to people who just want to foster a real conversation with you about cryptocurrency? When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you", and start making personal attacks. It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game.

These people are hardly trying to foster a real conversation. Person I was responding to implied I'm trying to rope him into an MLM scheme. I respond in kind, and I'm the one being rude?

> When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you"

I think your bias is showing. I'm hardly backed into a corner. From my perspective, I've only ever stated hard facts. They're the ones backed into a corner by these facts, and all they can ever muster up is "Oh but I don't find that useful. My use case is an app that literally only myself uses."

It's like wading into a conversation about Spark and saying it's overkill when you just want to process a hundred line CSV file. No duh, that's not what it's meant for. It gets real old when commenter after commenter -- and often even the same commenter -- misses the same point again and again.

And I'll say, that includes you. You're backed into a corner and unable to name any alternatives here [1], so you resort to criticizing my tone instead.

> It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game.

I wasn't looking to convince anyone in particular, and that includes you. It seems you're more swayed by tone than by facts. So be it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#349

Post by selestify » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 8:09 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #343

selestify wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The contract developer releasing the code is the problem, not verifying that is what is running. In a trustless environment like defi, why would anyone other than the most gullible put their money in any smart contract that doesn't have open sourced code? > When a company open sources some code, we assume and trust they are not keeping a separate, evil branch running in production unbeknownst to us. We assume and t…

> In a trustless environment like defi, why would anyone other than the most gullible put their money in any smart contract that doesn't have open sourced code? So... this is a thing for techies only? The rest of the world that can't read the code will have to trust the techies that say "this is good". As a not-JavaScript-devleoper, open sourced optimal written JavaScript is only slightly less inscrutable than minifi…

> Most of the world can't verify the code and will need to trust someone.

I haven't scrutinized the code for major flagship apps like Uniswap either. But plenty of others have, including paid auditors.

With open-sourced code, you can actually do this. You can actually get semi-reliable signals that others have scrutinized the code and found it to be fine. Not completely reliable, because sometimes auditors also miss subtle exploits. But you know, everyone's risk tolerance is different. Decide for yourself what degree of trust you're comfortable with, and put or don't put your money in accordingly.

This isn't specific to crypto, this is true for open source in general.

> So... this is a thing for techies only? The rest of the world that can't read the code will have to trust the techies that say "this is good".

But yes, as of now pretty much. The average Joe who cannot remember their own passwords should not be using crypto, IMO. With freedom comes the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot, and unless you understand basic digital safety procedures, you are best off not shooting yourself in the foot.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#350

Post by lottin » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 8:10 PM UTC

uncomputation wrote: post #331

miracle2k wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's up to you to decide how much control over your smart contract and it's assets you want to put into who's hands. It reasonable that the EVM would want to account for a wide range of use-cases. The point is simply to be able to make certain immutability guarantees, if you do want them. The utility is very evident in that something like a Uniswap pool a) works and b) cannot be stopped, so people who do find a Unisw…

It seems you’re talking from the developer’s point of view, the person who writes and deploys smart contracts. I am coming from the end user’s point of view, who has very little to gain from the immutability guarantees. For Uniswap pools, you’re referring to smart contracts that allow people to take out or provide funding for loans, right? So the immutability of the contract may be appealing in terms of interest rate…

Immutability is the least of DeFi's problems. A DeFi "loan" requires that the borrower must put up an amount equal to the sum of all future installments... which means for a borrower to be able to borrow funds they need to already have the funds they're borrowing (plus interest).