Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

211–220 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#211
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My experience is that the ratio of crypto skeptics here on hn more or less mirrors that of any non-crypto focused tech community (ex: coworkers, SIGs, etc)

Re: Why Web3?

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? The problem being described above is the possibility of the trusted author minting multiple digital signature NFTs for the same content. A reseller can't create a copy because they can't sign a message conferring ownership from the trusted source without their private key.

But at least you can check the blockchain for all the content the author has created.

The author could use a unique private key for each blockchain NFT if they wanted to avoid that.

Re: Why Web3?

#213
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.

Anything "web scale" without gatekeepers is immediately colonized by criminals, neo-Nazis, redpill edgelords, pedophiles, and all other such manner of people who are always looking for a new place to exist after being kicked out of every other one. Unmoderated discussion doesn't scale. The noise floor rises faster than the population of the service until it collapses under the weight of the trolls.

Moderation and filtering can happen on the user application layer with the underlying data still being open and accessible. Right now the gate keepers are Big Tech deciding who and when someone or something can access the data.

Re: Why Web3?

#214
post #29

Global finance will eventually be eclipsed by large-scale economic planning systems. It will probably take a couple decades for finance to go the way of alchemy, but the signs of its irrelevance are there: hilarious schemes like SPACs, DeFi, NFTs. Totally divorced from the underlying economics.

I think you are right and I think China is leading the way here.

Re: Why Web3?

#215

> 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…

Thanks for the examples.

The monetary case seems like the natural first step. The name service case seems more interesting. It isn’t a financial instrument, so it demonstrates DAP utility for non-financial application.

You referenced a few standards that the DAPs adhere to, which lines up with assumptions I’ve had about the data schema management. In a generalized sense, it seems that community members, or a governing body, will propose changes, and if the community accepts them, the changes will be implemented into the network.

It seems to me the name service case has parallels to identity management through protocols such as SAML and LDAP.

But I’m still trying to wrap my head around examples I’ve heard such as building DAP social media apps that allow users to move their data to another DAP social app. Thinking of the social media sites we have today, they all consider their profile structures and models proprietary, as market differentiators that set each one apart from their competitors, and make up the “secret sauce” that gives social value to their users.

How would a DAP be able to maintain similar differentiators? Or is the expectation that only certain things such as basic profile information be stored on the blockchain, able to move to other DAPs, while other proprietary functionality is managed elsewhere?

Re: Why Web3?

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 “…

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

As I already stated, this is not true. Nobody can stop an author from minting two different blockchain NFTs pointing to the same content, there's no difference between that and "double spending" a digital signature NFT. At the end of the day, the only thing the NFT does is prove "the author authorized this verbal statement of ownership", a digitally signed text file does exactly the same thing.

Re: Why Web3?

#217

The legitimacy of a worldwide database can be solved if the UN decides to run a MySQL instance, creates APIs for transactions between individuals, and agrees on a worldwide legal framework for transactions. In the eyes of many this would look more legitimate than the "network of terrorists and CP". I don't think that argument is enough

There's already a worldwide API for transactions between individuals. It's called SWIFT.

Re: Why Web3?

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a grift that people want you to buy into. That's why they're so invested in talking about it. If the technology was good, it'd practically sell itself.

This is often not necessarily the case. For web3 - I'm still waiting to figure out what problem it can solve meaningfully.

If you want to retain your sanity and finances, unless someone can explain in one sentence a clear and obvious use for the technology, all of crypto can be explained as unhinged speculation and rug pulls. We're over ten years in at this point with insane investment and nothing has appeared.

My guess is that this is where the next financial crash will come from since it's totally unregulated and the "shadow banks" were mostly banned after 2008. All the shadow money just goes to crypto.

Re: Why Web3?

#219
post #70
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…

1. Because it's a ponzi scheme and they get to get in on the ground floor. See: https://mobile.twitter.com/intangiblecoins/status/1473302581... 2. Because they're rich libertarians who see crypto as a way to protect their assets from the government

The only thing more annoying than libertarian crypto bros is progressives who don’t like crypto because people have made money off it or they see it as inherently right wing technology (the Soviet Union said that about computers originally, you can see how that worked out for them)

Re: Why Web3?

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you give a specific definition of federated in this context? To me, federated means that autonomous entities can talk to each other if they agree on a protocol. E.g. making a phone call between different carriers, or, uhh, the internet.

Here are the definitions from an older comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640046
Post reply on HN