Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

171–180 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#171

> financial applications have been built on top of Ethereum that all share the same database and users can move from application to application, keeping their data (and their login credentials stored in their wallet) as they go. Does anyone have examples of this in the wild? I often hear data portability listed as one of the great benefits, but I don’t have a grasp on what that actually means. In my mind, the data ne…

Some examples of dApp data sharing in the wild:

For example if you have Ether, you can use a decentralized exchange (e.g. Uniswap) to swap it to stablecoins like USDC and DAI, deposit that USDC and DAI into a collateralized lending market (e.g. Compound), then deposit your deposit tickets into a stable pair exchange (e.g. Curve) to earn maker fees when others trade against your liquidity, while ALSO earning interest fees that accrue to the underlying. This is possible because these contracts are all able to share data about token balances with each other.

On a side note, DAI is actually a great example to illustrate this kind of data sharing, because behind the scenes, DAI is itself a synthetic asset backed by yet other assets. DAI backing even includes derivative assets that themselves represent claims on liquidity denominated in yet other assets in external contracts (e.g. UNIV2WBTCETH). The tangled web of assets backed by other assets is insane, honestly, but it's all made possible by contracts sharing data with each other.

As a second example, you could take some bitcoin, bridge it onto Ethereum (using e.g. the REN network), and deposit and earn interest on it on a collateralized lending platform. These actions all require data about ETH balances and token balances to be portable across dApps, and in this case even portability across the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks.

A non-monetary example of data portability within Ethereum is the Ethereum Name Service. Like DNS, the name database is public and can be queried by other dApps. As a bonus, names in ENS also follow the ERC-721 token standard which provides a standard way to share data about who owns which names, so it's theoretically possible to write contracts that themselves write derivatives on name ownership, for example to give someone a collateralized loan backed by the value of their ENS name, or to have a contract that owns an ENS name but that requires a majority DAO vote in order to manage the name or transfer ownership.

In summary, for the most part dApps are purposely written in such a way that they can be easily integrated with other dApps using open standards and without asking permission, which is why the space sometimes gets a "money legos" moniker.

The data structures that allow these apps to pass data between each other are defined by the ERC-20 and ERC-721 token standards, which list standard method interfaces for smart contracts to store and query each others' token balances, and I believe were officiated as standards by the Ethereum Foundation. These standards are currently widely supported across all Ethereum smart contracts that involve tokens.

Re: Why Web3?

#172
post #12

What is the name of this cognitive bias that shows up in all web3 conversations about how internet/web2 ended up being a success and therefore web3 will too? If X led to Y, then Z that (we say) is similar to X will also lead to Y.

false equivalence

Re: Why Web3?

#173
post #34

perspective of a not terribly interested party: * two years ago: "bitcoin! bitcoin! bitcoin!" - tech community: "bitcoin is a pyramid scheme and also bad for the environment." * a year ago: "crypto! crypto! not bitcoin, there's others and also fintech loves blockchain!" - tech community: "nope, still a pyramid scheme, financial community goes whereever there's hype and $$$, they couldnt care less about 'tech'" * 6 mo…

Want to share where I can read the unified opinion from the "tech community"? I'd consider myself as part of the tech community, but never said anything of those things, are you sure you can speak for everyone in the community?

> Want to share where I can read the unified opinion from the "tech community"?

a good place to start would be the majority of replies on this thread

Re: Why Web3?

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you're thinking that centralized apps would always produce better UX for some reason? I think centralized apps are making UX necessarily worse, because they implement dark patterns in order to milk their users, while in a decentralized ones you can just make your own. For example, matrix vs discord, one I can customize and interact with however I want the other is garbage and if I change anything I will get banned…

The topic at hand is mainstream adoption and I think empirically the world disagrees with you.

I'm sure you believe mainstream adoption is a consequence of a software having good UX and being very useful, I don't.

Re: Why Web3?

#175

> 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.

There's a small number of grifters leading a very large number of naive tech types who genuinely believe they're about to make a bunch of money on this thing they don't quite understand but must be legit or there wouldn't be so many people working on it.

Re: Why Web3?

#176

> 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...

As someone who's out here building a web3 site (and is a heavy twitter user), I agree completely. Most of the twitter talking heads also have no clue what they're talking about, waxing on about grand visions when the first set of pragmatic implications are already here, basically (metamask/web wallet login).

Re: Why Web3?

#177
post #34

perspective of a not terribly interested party: * two years ago: "bitcoin! bitcoin! bitcoin!" - tech community: "bitcoin is a pyramid scheme and also bad for the environment." * a year ago: "crypto! crypto! not bitcoin, there's others and also fintech loves blockchain!" - tech community: "nope, still a pyramid scheme, financial community goes whereever there's hype and $$$, they couldnt care less about 'tech'" * 6 mo…

It feels like something or other cryptocurrency related floats on the front page of Hacker News every other day, and discussion about it is welcomed. I would call that the opposite of "please leave".

Re: Why Web3?

#178
post #93

HN wasn't around when Web2.0 became a thing, but I don't remember Slashdot being filled with constant articles justifying Web2.0. I'm am just forgetting or were we as a community a lot less divided about it?

I think there was less to be divided about. Back then, the best the evangelist could do was create a blog and try to game SEO to get noticed. They could post on a few popular forums, but discoverability was limited and algorithms designed to pump engagement didn't exist because social media platforms were in their infancy. It's a different world today. The barrier is lower. Blogging influentially is as easy as posting a medium article and pushing it on the social media platforms. So specific voices which tend to be controversial are getting way more amplified. Then the algorithms just creates echo chambers to keep the users engaged to pump up the ad revenue.

That being said, Web 2.0 had two primary themes and business value propositions. It was social media/ads, and e-commerce. Those were pretty clear and there was no confusion about how money would be made. Out of those was born what I like to call Web 2.5, where basically every industry was getting SaaSified in one form or another. Out of this was born big data and the emergence of the most recent ML hype due to the need to create these algos to maximize ad driven profit.

Crypto/Decentralization/Web 3.0 has a much much more challenging road ahead to get mass adoption. Outside of the obvious scaling issues decentralization brings about, decentralized apps have a much less clear path to monetization. That's in essence why they need to create their own economies with tokens and crypto. Really for "Web 3.0" to be successful, we are looking towards a whole scale reimagining of how economies function. This is entirely different than using the internet to create analogs to real world things like stores or newspapers.

The value proposition of social media was abundant, and the path to profitability was clear. Ditto for ecommerce platforms. Ditto for the majority of SaaS applications.

I think the fundamental divide here is talking about Web 3.0, (or ICOs, DApps, DeFi, NFTs, or w/e the "use case" of the day is), generally seems to be avoiding talking about the true value proposition of decentralization, which will face such tremendous resistance from powerful world governments, that it's akin to a war being fought to creating a new world order and evolution of how human society is shaped. The stakes are much higher and failure is much more likely.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the most successful projects just end up being centralized layers on top of the protocols and all they really end up doing is usurping the place of some existing Web 2.0 platforms due to some network effect pushed forward by a few key influencers. That's essentially what happened with TCP/IP and HTTP. I don't see why it will be any different this time.

Re: Why Web3?

#179
I hate the name - were we not at web3.0 already? I am rooting for decentralized solutions, but I could barely muster the energy to look up what "web3" is supposed to be.

Re: Why Web3?

#180

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…

The photoshopping step is unnecessary. You can literally mint infinite NFTs of the same piece of digital art.
Post reply on HN