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

351–360 of 377 posts

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#351

Post by selestify »

seoaeu wrote: post #345
selestify wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Because from where I am it looks more like it exists for charlatans and scammers to draw more people in and exploit them.

Yes, "charlatans and scammers" are definitely part of the demographic that would benefit from crypto. But you're really going to ignore every other use case I've mentioned?

From where some people stand, it looks more like Tor exists for pedophiles to draw other pedophiles in. They're not wrong, but they're also not acknowledging the full picture of what Tor and privacy in general enables.

> Also, why do cryptocurrency fanatics so frequently accuse anyone critical of them as being hateful?

Because the critics, as you can see over and over again in this very thread, are being completely dismissive to the actual use cases and benefits that crypto brings. Never acknowledging the minority of people for whom it actually brings real value to (granted, they've become a minority now that there's a lot of speculative dumb money in the market), never acknowledging the points that are being made, and also calling crypto advocates MLM schemers who just want to draw more people in to make money off of them.

It's one thing if the critics take a look at it and say "Oh that's not really for me" or "Oh I don't know if censorship resistance is an attractive enough incentive for people to keep running Ethereum nodes long-term." Then we could really have a conversation. But they don't say it like that. They say everything with disdain and a sneer. So I respond in kind.

What would you call that other than "hate"? If you kept criticizing something your friend likes despite them telling you all the reasons they like it, and you only ever saying how much it sucks and how nobody should like it, doesn't it make sense for them to ask you "Dude, why do you hate it so much? What do you have against it?"

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#352

Post by shatteredgate »

selestify wrote: post #178
wokwokwok wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

To copy paste other comments of mine: > 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 ca…

The US government can also swoop in and ban or heavily tax ETH exchanges and that cuts off the majority of those would do transactions. There's no need to take down every node; I can't see how any of those translate to killer features for this reason. For PGP, I don't understand why the user isn't encrypting them on their own machine. That seems like an incredible waste to implement encryption in a smart contract. As far as sanctions go, the fact that criminals and ransomware and other fraudsters can't be stopped or sanctioned is an anti-feature if you ask me.

Also I hope you can understand that leading the conversation with these "fight the government" sentiments really sours the debate on crypto, to me that only cements the idea that this stuff only appeals to other nation-state actors, activists, journalists, and scammers/criminals. Which I suppose is fine, except for the criminals, but at that point it's the same niche that Tor fits into.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#353

Post by abaga129 »

acdha wrote: post #287
abaga129 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different from Fiat money? Or anything for that matter. It holds no real value beyond the paper it is printed on. It is valuable because we all agree as a society to give it value.

Yes, cryptocurrency is the purest form of fiat currency, which is to say a very weak one. The difference is that almost all other fiat currencies are backed by an organization with real world power: for example, the US dollar is required to pay taxes in one of the largest world economies, which guarantees trillions of dollars in demand, and it’s what the US government uses to pay millions of people and buy all kinds…

While I dont completely agree with you, you do make good points. I would argue that Cryptocurrencies lacking sovereignty is what makes it appealing and gives it value for most users. Bitcoin is seen as an inflation hedge for many investors when they see their own government printing money like its post WW1 Germany (Exaggeration). The volatility is definitely an issue for someone looking to invest a serious amount into.

I personally feel that we are still in the very early stages of this tech and I think it will continue to grow.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#354

Post by lottin »

v64 wrote: post #192
crucialfelix wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I die, will my Dapps still run forever as long as people access them? User pays? This is the only great use case I can think of.

Yes, this is the case. Quoting myself from another comment: > On a blockchain, once I've deployed my app, I can walk away and never think about the app again. I only have to pay for the initial deployment of the contract without any further ongoing cost. The app will always be there ready to be used by an end user who's willing to pay to interact with it.

As long as someone continues to pay for the storage of your app, which is not guaranteed.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#355

Post by smoldesu »

selestify wrote: post #348
smoldesu wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your hard facts are really just reframing a conversation that time and time again you've failed to engage with. People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general, and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM). When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". What people want to see is how Web3 iterates on the internet as it exists right now. You've provided a few implementation details, and repeatedly stated that it's different, but at no point have you produced a compelling refutation to the idea that, as a concept, it is a scam. Web3 is a bubble, even you're willing to admit as much; "there's already too much dumb money in it already" you claimed. Furthermore, you're arguing for a level of utility that doesn't exist out of the context of transferring money to wildly unstable assets. This is a textbook scam, and your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms.

Web3 is marketing itself as something it is not. You're using a combination of expectation management and goalpost shifting to refute that, and people have called you on it. I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#356

Post by vmception »

Animats wrote: post #346
vmception wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The second one has met the reserve price, you are telling me that bid does not guarantee a sale to that bidder?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#357

Post by thesz »

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…

Unless there is an entity or coalition of goal-aligned entities with 68% of stakes or 51% of hashing/PoW power.

Then one suddenly finds oneself with a pretty much mutable world.

It appears it has been shown many times [1] that such attack is quite possible.

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/...

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#358

Post by DannyBee »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #303
DannyBee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem you cite doesn't seem so common, or so large, that it is worth changing literally the entire architecture of everything over. Maybe it will be someday, but it definitely isn't today, nor does it seem to be happening particularly soon! Until developers feel like that day is coming, this neither makes sense, nor will it go anywhere. (as an aside, the non-payment one seems kind of silly, since the blockchain…

You are implying the false pretense that the person you are replying to is arguing that Web3 technology is being properly valued and therefore should be used right now ! What an easy strawman to knock over - what they are actually saying is that the vision and promise of this emerging technology layer has obvious value compared to today's standard. Man that latter statement is a real thinker in comparison.

Your sarcasm actually doesn't fix anything, but, for all your sarcasm, you apparently didn't read very carefully.

I pointed out it appears to not solve any problem that currently exists, yes. But I also qualified it by saying it doesn't solve a problem that people seem likely to have anytime soon, ie the future, either.

So the latter statement you try to prop up doesn't change anything - it does not have obvious value compared to today's standard, but it also doesn't have obvious value in the future, either.

So no, the latter statement is not a thinker in comparison. In fact, as i said elsewhere, there appears to have been zero diligence on product/market fit. This appears to be something that was done because they could, not because anyone actually seems to want it.

Good luck on turning that vision that solves nobody's problem into a thing anyone cares about!

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#359

Post by tim333 »

jsemrau wrote: post #108
bee_rider wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet was better before Social Media, but I guess that was a kind of different decentralization.

While I agree with you that the Internet was better before Social Media, these service are highly centralized. Although, for most normal users decentral or central doesn't really matter.

I on the other hand prefer the internet post social media, in which I would include HN and similar.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#360

Post by shagie »

adamgoodapp wrote: post #199
paxys wrote: post #169

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?

You can have your dapp just return HTML so in this case your simple static website is hosted on the blockchain.

What is the advantage of this over a static site that is hosted on the internet in the traditional Web 1.0 way?

How much does this cost to do?

How much does this cost to update?

What does it take to remove it if you decide that no, you really don't want to have that material online anymore?

Post reply on HN