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

221–230 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#221

Post by jandrese »

Kiro wrote: post #213
jandrese wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personal spam control has its own issues. Managing the filter can end up consuming all of your time on the platform and that effort has to be replicated for every user. Worse, public perception will be that your platform is unusable because the horrendous first impression it makes.

So maybe you decided to make public filter lists, but then the people making the filters end up being the defacto operators of the platform and you're back to square 1.

Re: Why Web3?

#223

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

root_axis wrote: post #190
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible. Of course it depends on the implementation, how do you identify an object?

Leonardo could still create one NFT saying "this is ownership of my painting of the woman that always looks at the beholder" and another saying "this is ownership of my painting "Mona Lisa" and it would perhaps not be immediately clear that they are the same painting.

Nevertheless, that is the "minting" problem and not the "spending" (or transfer) problem.

Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies at this point, sorry.

Re: Why Web3?

#224

Post by aquateen »

cercatrova wrote: post #191
indigochill wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Traditionally, you build something great (or an MVP) and market it. I don't like the Web3 hype either but generally people say one should market their product first then build it if there's enough demand, through a landing page capturing emails or pre-payments, or other such ways of gauging demand. It just seems that Web3 fanatics took the marketing side too far that they've forgotten they actually have to build a…

> generally people say one should market their product first then build it if there's enough demand

I don't agree this is the common wisdom, and it's kind of a surprising take to see on this website specifically.

Re: Why Web3?

#225

Post by root_axis »

codesternews wrote: post #185
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.

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

Indeed, but NFT enthusiasts would say that the replicas are not valid because they were not originally minted by the trusted author, of course, nothing is stopping the author from minting multiple NFTs of the same content so the point is moot.

Re: Why Web3?

#226

Post by ehsankia »

closetnerd wrote: post #192
tehjoker wrote: post #155

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.

That's more or less what the GP said. "If the technology is good" applies both to how well it works, but also how useful it is. Neither of those has a good answer yet. But the best way to see it being useful is to actually create an MVP and show it in practice, not through fancy words.

Re: Why Web3?

#227

Post by cableshaft »

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…

You're not kidding. I could swear I've read some of the comments in here, word for word, in past web3 posts. I wasn't even sure it was a new post at first, the comments (and the replies to those comments!) have been so similar.

Re: Why Web3?

#228

Post by root_axis »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #223
root_axis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible. Of course it depends on the implementation, how do you identify an object? Leonardo could still create one NFT saying "this is ownership of my painting of the woman that always looks at the beholder" and another saying "this is ownership of my painting "Mona Lisa" and it would perhaps not be immed…

> Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible

Just use a different private key for each sale.

Re: Why Web3?

#229

Post by krrrh »

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…

Walter Benjamin talked about this problem in 1935 [0]. It's particularly an issue with photography as an art form. For instance Jeff Wall's masters are all stored as RAW digital files and displayed as light boxes [1]. Theoretically he could produce an unlimited number of editions of each work, and theoretically anyone working at a record label who had received a copy of the hq file could do the same [2].

What prevents this and maintains the value of the work is that there are legal and social norms enforced through a vast network of institutions (galleries, museums, collectors, art fairs) that ensure that there will never be more than 1 actual edition of the work, or 2 or 3, whatever it is the number never changes after it is set, and minting more editions would be professional suicide, and the network of institutions would never allow or recognize it even if an artist tried it.

Lawrence Lessig's book Code developed the argument that any combination of social norms, legal structures/enforcement, and code or infrastructure can function as law, and sanction or foster certain behaviour and markets. "Code is law" was a clever observation and a bit of a revelation, but the NFT crowd seem to believe that it's enough or that it has more value than the social norms and contract law of the existing art world. It's engineering mindset hubris.

There's an attempt now to work social norms into the NFT space and enforce etiquette around "right-clicking", but convincing collectors of paintings that they could continue to collect photography was less of a challenge than convincing generations raised on BitTorrent, DRM wars, and authorless memes to introduce false scarcity into online digital abundance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_... [1] https://artblart.com/tag/transparency-in-light-box/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyed_Room:_B-Sides_an...

Re: Why Web3?

#230

Post by irrational »

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…

Have you seen the one with Matt Damon hawking a crypto site? How much must it cost to get someone of his caliber to star in your commercial?
Post reply on HN