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

121–130 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#121

Post by [deleted] »

indigochill wrote: post #90
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...

> Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it... And the order of operations. Traditionally, you build something great (or an MVP) and market it. The crypto community has been putting the marketing before the building. It's probably uncontroversial to say although cryptocurrency -could- do great things, right now the bulk of trade…

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#122

Post by throwaway984393 »

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...

Decentralized trust is another way of saying a grapevine. Grapevine communication (or trust) is only useful in specific circumstances, and is often actively detrimental.

Why are so many people just going along with these concepts as if they make sense? It's like nobody's using their brain.

Re: Why Web3?

#123

Post by root_axis »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #111
root_axis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.

Re: Why Web3?

#124

Post by quickthrower2 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #98
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.…

Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digita…

It is worse than that, there are no pixels! The NFT is a short string, usually a URL. It’s effectively a QR code! You can create as many copies as you like. The “value” of an NFT comes in somehow convincing people you are the official one. This needs a lot of clout: e.g. a sale by Sotherbys that is well known that people can trace back the NFT to. In a sense its like a digital antique when there are easy fakes.

My way of thinking is an NFT is a shitcoin with supply 1 and smallest denomination 1.

Re: Why Web3?

#125

Post by simonw »

> If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single company, but instead is a truly open system available to all, then that kind of market power cannot be built up around a data asset.

But it's a crap database. It's incredibly slow and incredibly expensive. The benefits we get from using a slow, expensive database need to be absolutely enormous for this to turn out to be worthwhile.

Re: Why Web3?

#126

Post by quickthrower2 »

root_axis wrote: post #123
quickthrower2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.

Thats not the same thing.

Re: Why Web3?

#127

Post by runako »

This argument is simple, but forgets that the Internet has essentially had permission-less databases before, notably in IRC, XMPP, and email. Anyone can run an IRC or XMPP node, anyone can run email. The protocols are open and free (as in money) to use. But time and again the masses of Internet users choose centralized alternatives.

It's interesting to see this already playing out in the Web 3 space. Users concentrate transactions on a few (< 50) sites. The space is considered investable by VMS because they expect companies to be able to create lock-in similar to what Slack did with chat or Facebook did with Web forums.

Re: Why Web3?

#128

Post by root_axis »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #126
root_axis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.

Thats not the same thing.

I just explained why it is. A one line response of "nuh uh" is not convincing.

Re: Why Web3?

#129

Post by xrd »

simonw wrote: post #125

> If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single company, but instead is a truly open system available to all, then that kind of market power cannot be built up around a data asset. But it's a crap database. It's incredibly slow and incredibly expensive. The benefits we get from using a slow, expensive database need to be absolutely enormous for this…

If you read the post he recommends from his partner, that is covered in detail by comparing it to the PC, which compared poorly to mainframes, but was cheap. And, that Clayton Christenson remarked that having a singular facet that is unique and very different, is a good starting point for a revolution.

Re: Why Web3?

#130

Post by corobo »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #98
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.…

Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digita…

> What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset?

That one seems like a classic supply and demand thing. Make too many, sell none

Having said that, that does actually seem to be the business model in this wave. At least for the ones people are heavily pushing that get on on my radar. Maybe not hues but "accessories" (procedurally generated png layers, flattened)

Post reply on HN