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

261–270 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#261

Post by ipaddr »

irrational wrote: post #230
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…

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?

To get George to do those expresso ads it costs 18 million.

To get Matthew mcconaughey to drive 3 million.

As for Matt Damon. cryto.com gave 1 million to water.org and Matt said any money he makes will go to water.org and that's worth millions. My guess 4-5 million on the highside but probably 3 to 4 million

Re: Why Web3?

#262

Post by [deleted] »

saurik wrote: post #240
pg_bot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the early days of computing, there were obvious benefits to networking computers. The work wasn't done for no reason, there was clear value in coming up with all of these protocols. The main reason it took so long for general adoption was the fact that computers were not in most family homes until the 1990s. The barrier to adopting the internet wasn't the inherent value of the protocols it was the cost of the…

I mean, if I want to send you some money, and let's say you are just in Canada (I am in the United States), my options are limited and many are super expensive... and almost all of them take forever. The only cheap, easy, and fast way is PayPal (or their subsidiary Venmo), which I don't think anyone truly likes (evidence for which is easy: find literally any thread on Hacker News about them that isn't using their exi…

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#263

Post by csbartus »

The single important question about web3 is: will it be free? Can app devs just start building without paying the blockchain / network fee? The same for users; can they just use apps for free?

If not, the question is: do you pay with data, and go free, or do you pay with real money and prices skyrocketing due to endless speculations?

Re: Why Web3?

#264

Post by unicornmama »

pg_bot wrote: post #134
capableweb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare email to snailmail, the same argument could be made. That it's over the internet is just a preference, why care about email when normal mail works perfectly fine? "Without a single 3rd party" is a technical feature, one that allows people to transfer money anywhere, for any reason via any device connected to the internet, without having to open up a bank account. According to the last numbers I've read…

"If you compare email to snailmail, the same argument could be made. That it's over the internet is just a preference, why care about email when normal mail works perfectly fine?" This is nonsense. Email is orders of magnitude cheaper and faster than snail mail. Talk to any business owner who made the switch from physically mailing bills to emailing their clients invoices and ask them how much time and money they sav…

Talk to 8 year old me who made the switch from physically mailing letters to my grandfather to emailing him.

Re: Why Web3?

#265

Post by aquateen »

nfw2 wrote: post #255
aquateen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Maybe it's not common wisdom in general, but it is a pretty common viewpoint in the startup world. Building products is expensive, and startups can't afford to build something no one wants. It's pretty much universal advise that finding an initial market fit should be the first priority of any new startup. Literally making a sale before the product exists is the extreme end of that philosophy. Whether or not this is…

I've been on this website a long time and I suppose the userbase has grown quite a bit. I don't assume everyone has read all of Paul Graham's articles or even know who he is, but are you familiar with how YCombinator works?

Enough money to survive on ramen for a few months and build a demo. Get feedback from users and iterate over and over.

Re: Why Web3?

#266

Post by tehjoker »

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...

The phrase "stock touts" comes to mind.

Re: Why Web3?

#267

Post by [deleted] »

pg_bot wrote: post #258
saurik wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if I want to send you some money, and let's say you are just in Canada (I am in the United States), my options are limited and many are super expensive... and almost all of them take forever. The only cheap, easy, and fast way is PayPal (or their subsidiary Venmo), which I don't think anyone truly likes (evidence for which is easy: find literally any thread on Hacker News about them that isn't using their exi…

The best case scenario I can see is that cryptocurrencies push the US banking system to adopt something like the British "Faster Payment Services". If anyone begins to gain adoption they will be outcompeted by incumbent banks. It has never been the case that banking has been limited by technology for quicker and cheaper transactions in the US.

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#268

Post by dmitriid »

Kiro wrote: post #200
epistasis wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an easy counter to "I see no practical application for decentralization," which is to provide an example of that application. I'm not convinced that Bitcoin or currencies are a practical application that results in net gain (economic or otherwise) to humanity. The internet was obvious from day 1, even if the actual end applications ended up quite a bit different. > how can you not see the utility in an open f…

The gate keepers are preventing me from building the kind of apps I want. Just the other day people here reminisced about the days when Twitter used to have an open API and how bad it is that they shut it down. I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down.

> I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down.

So. Where's blockchain-powered Twitters and Facebooks then? For all the talk about gatekeeping and decentralization no actual apps appeared that would in any way support your words.

Re: Why Web3?

#269

Post by coffeefirst »

csbartus wrote: post #263

The single important question about web3 is: will it be free? Can app devs just start building without paying the blockchain / network fee? The same for users; can they just use apps for free? If not, the question is: do you pay with data, and go free, or do you pay with real money and prices skyrocketing due to endless speculations?

And second, will it be easy?

Everyone forgot the key to HTML / blogs / youtube / social media was anyone could join and start doing stuff on a Sunday afternoon.

Re: Why Web3?

#270

Post by PaulHoule »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #237
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

The author struggles to make the point that Web3 has value. Isn't "another opportunity for grift" a source of value for grifters?

He's a VC, he needs to project that they invest in things that have value. They're part of the grift. I have 0 faith in anything coming out of a VC's office to be beneficial to society. An interesting business? Sure! But in the long run it will not be a good thing.

That guy usually writes some good articles and seems to have some sense but since the NFT grift hit it big the blockheads have really gone down a rabbit hole.
Post reply on HN