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

181–190 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#181

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

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.

No it doesn't, because you can simply keep selling the "old" version with the signature that say that you are the owner. It is digital, so you can make an an endless number of copies.

Re: Why Web3?

#182

Post by numbsafari »

arbuge wrote: post #23

I read this as yet another article stating how great web3 is going to be and how important the decentralization aspect is, without making it clear exactly why this is the case, and what concrete examples of things we'll be able to do with it (that we're unable to do today) are. Web3 sounds to me like one of those soap opera startups PG talks about. They sound like a great idea when you propose them, but do people rea…

With web3, there is no deplatforming, no moderation, no accountability. There is no responsibility.

That’s what they really want. They want a system that, in their minds, won’t be subject to regulation or social pressure.

They are still mad that Reddit blocked certain groups. That parler got banned from public clouds.

Those are the things that made them “wake up” to the need for web3.

Deleting data and social accountability are important features that they find abhorrent.

Re: Why Web3?

#183

Post by stathibus »

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.

Web3 is like a solution in search of a problem, except worse, because the solution does not actually solve the problem.

Re: Why Web3?

#184

Post by capableweb »

zzzeek wrote: post #173
capableweb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

HN is such a small slice of the "tech community", if we see the definition the same way (people who work in "tech"). I don't think you should take anything you read here as "majority of people in tech thinks like this", because the size is so small.

Re: Why Web3?

#185

Post by codesternews »

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.

There is some project. NFT Replicas - https://nftreplicas.net/ Nothing is stopping any one to mint another NFT with same content.

Re: Why Web3?

#186

Post by quickthrower2 »

root_axis wrote: post #168
quickthrower2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an analogy and diverts from the original point. We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. You point about minting another is an interesting point but its not a double spend so we veer off the topic. If we take your point then its the same as saying anyone can create a new crypto and call it Bitcoin. If I have an OG Bitcoin and you have a fake one then you can steel my real o…

> We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. "Double spend" is a cryptocurrency problem, NFTs do not have this problem since unlike "currencies" the goal is to create a "non fungible" record of ownership for an off-chain asset; a chain of digital signatures satisfies this need, the double spend issue is not relevant to the stated use-case.

The genesis of this discussion is “NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures”. I basically said “how to avoid double spend in digital signatures”, someone replied “but you can clone NFTs!”. I said “yes but that is different”.

You are correct double spend is not a problem with NFT because they piggy back on crypto layers.

However double spend is a problem with just digital signatures that “retroactively obsoleted” NFTs.

Since there are multiple people commenting and steering the thread in different directions I feel this is being filibustered. So ill stop replying. Im exhausted!

Re: Why Web3?

#187

Post by corobo »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #176
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...

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).

Do you have a tech blog or anything folks could keep up with?

Preferably RSS based but I'd sign up to a mail list

Re: Why Web3?

#188

Post by verdverm »

dathinab wrote: post #165
verdverm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a problem I see, too. A lot of things are far less decentralized/federated in practice then they claim to be. It's not uncommon that some of the points why something is federated or even decentralized are only there in hypothetical scenarios (let's say in theory) which just don't happen in practice. Not because they technically can't, but because there are no marked dynamics insensitiveing it (probably more th…

Many of the protocol level 2 scaling like rollups are far more centrally controlled than they lead you to believe

Re: Why Web3?

#189

Post by saurik »

root_axis wrote: post #168
quickthrower2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an analogy and diverts from the original point. We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. You point about minting another is an interesting point but its not a double spend so we veer off the topic. If we take your point then its the same as saying anyone can create a new crypto and call it Bitcoin. If I have an OG Bitcoin and you have a fake one then you can steel my real o…

> We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. "Double spend" is a cryptocurrency problem, NFTs do not have this problem since unlike "currencies" the goal is to create a "non fungible" record of ownership for an off-chain asset; a chain of digital signatures satisfies this need, the double spend issue is not relevant to the stated use-case.

The only difference between a fungible token and a non-fungible token is its fungibility: everything else is the same. The stated use case for both is "I want to know for certain who owns something". A chain of digital signatures fails to satisfy that need. Please stop being so assertive about something you clearly don't know anything about: there are tons of useful complaints about how people are using NFTs, but this is not one of them.

Re: Why Web3?

#190

Post by root_axis »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #181
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.

No it doesn't, because you can simply keep selling the "old" version with the signature that say that you are the owner. It is digital, so you can make an an endless number of copies.

You can do the exact same thing with a blockchain NFT - there's absolutely no difference in terms of outcome. Each "sale" generates a unique digital signature NFT because the public key of the person buying is incorporated as part of the cryptographic signature.
Post reply on HN