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

Why Web3?

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#111

Post by quickthrower2 »

root_axis wrote: post #100
doomrobo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public.…

The NFT would contain "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key. When you decide to sell someone the NFT you append "$new_owner_public_key owns $k as of $date" to the NFT and sign it with your private key: this establishes a secure and verifiable chain of ownership.

You can send two of those assignment signatures to two different parties simultaneously.

Is there a way in your system to avoid the double send?

Re: Why Web3?

#112

Post by einarfd »

I'm flabbergasted over the web3 term, and that anyone is using it unironical. The web2.0 term, went from something that was a bit awkward but ok in the beginning, to something that you want to laugh at people using. Then someone takes that, adds one to it, and thinks it's a good name for their tech?

Re: Why Web3?

#113

Post by [deleted] »

ggregoire wrote: post #38

HN meta: funnily enough, I made an extension that highlights keywords on HN and I added "web3" to the list this morning after reading this 3-week old comment: "It feels as if 5 similar articles [about web3] reach the HN top page every day like this. The same arguments are made, the same rebuttals are made, the same comments are made ad nauseam, every single time, with no apparent conclusion. Are we officially living…

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#114

Post by ivalm »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #96
qaq wrote: post #3

One thing that is confusing most loud supporters of Web3 are VCs and yet: "It all comes down to the database that sits behind an application. If that database is controlled by a single entity (think company, think big tech), then enormous market power accrues to the owner/administrator of that database. If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single…

Consider a few simple examples - It is possible to buy crypto purely peer to peer e.g just 2 people posting on a forum. Yet, most people buy it on an exchange and pay the transaction fees. It is possible to set up a wordpress server on your home PC or a cheap VPS, yet most people buy it off wordpress.com It is possible to replicate an ETF with relatively low effort by just looking up their holdings every month and re…

> The main idea IMO is just relying on people to be willing to buy into whatever new thing has a lot of marketing and hype behind it. They consistently do. Even if web3 is a truly open system, people will remain too apathetic to learn how that system works - they will just go to the most popular platform and pay the fee

Then why not do it on web2? Web2, as it relies on trusted authorities, is fundamentally cheaper to run than web3.

> It is possible to replicate an ETF with relatively low effort by just looking up their holdings every month and rebalancing, yet most people pay the ETF fees.

ETFs rebalance without incurring capital gains, which is a massive advantage.

Re: Why Web3?

#115

Post by verdverm »

austincheney wrote: post #103
davidhariri wrote: post #84

> Frankly, it is all too much for me. Same. I've been actively unfollowing people on Twitter every day to clean my feeds of it. I'm not anti-web3 or anti-crypto, but I definitely don't need to read the same rhetoric from 100 people a day. Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it...

Web3 is federated, not decentralized. The distinction is significant.

I like this distinction, but I will note that not all web3 is federated or decentralized. It has been become more of a marketing word for projects which both do and don't adhere to the foundations.

Re: Why Web3?

#116

Post by moritonal »

Kiro wrote: post #106

I don't like how the extreme hatred toward Web3 has spiraled into "I see no practical application for decentralization". Crypto and blockchain aside, how can you not see the utility in an open firehose database/API without gate keepers? Don't conflate decentralization with blockchain.

Because the only reason I can imagine someone wanting a open database without gate keepers is for something the society I've aligned with has decided is illegal.

At the end of the day, I guess I trust the goverment I vote for and the banks I decide on more than a distributed group of strangers. Do you have an example of a DB that was unfairly limited by a gate keeper?

Re: Why Web3?

#117

Post by throwaway984393 »

The saddest thing about all this is how much real improvement we could make to the world if nerd billionaires would stop chasing stupid ideas they don't understand.

It's like rewriting a codebase. You know it's just going to be expensive, time-consuming, introduce tons of new bugs, and may not even solve the customer's problem. But it feels good, so people bumble forward, confident in their ignorance of the real outcome.

Re: Why Web3?

#120

Post by verdverm »

ivalm wrote: post #114
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a few simple examples - It is possible to buy crypto purely peer to peer e.g just 2 people posting on a forum. Yet, most people buy it on an exchange and pay the transaction fees. It is possible to set up a wordpress server on your home PC or a cheap VPS, yet most people buy it off wordpress.com It is possible to replicate an ETF with relatively low effort by just looking up their holdings every month and re…

> The main idea IMO is just relying on people to be willing to buy into whatever new thing has a lot of marketing and hype behind it. They consistently do. Even if web3 is a truly open system, people will remain too apathetic to learn how that system works - they will just go to the most popular platform and pay the fee Then why not do it on web2? Web2, as it relies on trusted authorities, is fundamentally cheaper to…

> Then why not do it on web2

Because you need something new and abstract to attract the rubes

Post reply on HN