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

441–450 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#441

Post by [deleted] »

lottin wrote: post #259
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. There is an infinite number of blockchains.

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#442

Post by antoniuschan99 »

austincheney wrote: post #220
jagger27 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Great explaination. I like “web3 is distributed not decentralized”

For the federated and decentralized info: Is it like Sia coin and file coin are operated on its own protocol/nodes. Both are decentralized but it’s federated in the sense that sia and filecoin don’t talk to each other?

Re: Why Web3?

#443

Post by scyclow »

vanusa wrote: post #440
scyclow wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you don't know what byzantine fault tolerance [1] is, then that's fine. It's not gibberish to people who are into distributed systems. And I'm not claiming it's a silver bullet or trying to persuade anyone either. BFT is overkill for most use cases, but sometimes it's useful. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault

The commenter above was certainly familiar with BFT. It wasn't the term as such that was gibberish. But rather, the implication you were attempting to make that this is a "critical innovation" that provides value.

What's gibberish about the implication? That's all a blockchain is. It takes cryptographic signatures (or more specifically, transactions that are cryptographically signed), and puts them in order.

As pointed out, the cryptography existed well before blockchain. My only point was that the fancy decentralized way it orders the transactions is the real innovation.

(edit: grammer)

Re: Why Web3?

#444

Post by lghh »

kinnth wrote: post #430
ChicagoDave wrote: post #403

The current state of web3 reminds me of people building new game engines well before any reasonable game could be built on the platform. This happened a lot in the 90's/2000's in the Interactive Fiction community. Smart people would find IF, play a bunch of games, build a game or two, then decide the existing platforms "didn't fit their style or the kinds of features they wanted" and start discussing how _they_ would…

A lot of them are happening right now. The most interesting thing about Web3 is just how much stuff is being built. Really innovative financial models, huge DAO that are beginning to work, NFT communities that actually help people. It's happening right now, just join the discords.

Isn't it funny that all of these conversations around federated data are happening on discord? I'd love it if Discord was indexed by search engines so I didn't have to fight to find that conversations that I am interested in.

Re: Why Web3?

#445

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

aboodman wrote: post #305
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.

> will be dated more recently than the other How does the receiver of such a transfer know that the transfer is final? There's no way for them to know that an "earlier" transfer of same item won't show up days later.

Right. This is, by the way, the sole innovation of Bitcoin. Describing a mechanism to establish a sequential order of transactions with finality.

Re: Why Web3?

#446

Post by vanusa »

scyclow wrote: post #443
vanusa wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter above was certainly familiar with BFT. It wasn't the term as such that was gibberish. But rather, the implication you were attempting to make that this is a "critical innovation" that provides value.

What's gibberish about the implication? That's all a blockchain is. It takes cryptographic signatures (or more specifically, transactions that are cryptographically signed), and puts them in order. As pointed out, the cryptography existed well before blockchain. My only point was that the fancy decentralized way it orders the transactions is the real innovation. (edit: grammer)

It's gibberish because you don't justify why this innovation provides value.

Instead you just slather more fancy technical lingo on top.

Re: Why Web3?

#447

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

root_axis wrote: post #198
saurik wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

A semantic distinction without an actual difference. At the end of the day all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", if you trust the public key of X a signed text file stating "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" gives you identical guarantees to a blockchain NFT stating the same thing. Nothing stops author X from minting a blockchain NFT that states "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" and also…

I think you are confusing the image of an NFT with the token itself. That two tokens point to the same JPG (for example) doesn't make them the same NFT. They are two distinct tokens.

Re: Why Web3?

#448

Post by namose »

tshaddox wrote: post #386
boomlinde wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. If your favorite artist produced a record and sold you a copy, guaranteeing that it the only copy that'll ever be made, you might be inclined to pay more for it. Let's say you buy it, because you believe this might be the only opportunity to own this music. If your favorite artist then proceeded to sell other records with the sam…

> Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. My point is that if you buy a new record from an artist you generally expect it to be original music that’s the product of creativity. But a lot of artists release things that are perceived by many to be very derivative, unoriginal, and not creative.

There’s a limit to artists’ ability to do this. It’s called copyright law and it’s enforced by a central authority. Unfortunately no such central authority exists in the NFT space, so it’s perfectly within anyone’s rights and abilities to copy an artwork and sell it as their own.

Re: Why Web3?

#449

Post by IgorPartola »

everfree wrote: post #366
root_axis wrote: post #68

I'm not convinced. People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain. DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2"…

> "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization" Some popular types of Layer 2s, namely zk rollups, have on-chain data and on-chain transaction verification, so I believe you are wrong on this count.

I guess I am really out of touch but I understood about two and a half words of what you just said.

Re: Why Web3?

#450

Post by ekanes »

kinnth wrote: post #430
ChicagoDave wrote: post #403

The current state of web3 reminds me of people building new game engines well before any reasonable game could be built on the platform. This happened a lot in the 90's/2000's in the Interactive Fiction community. Smart people would find IF, play a bunch of games, build a game or two, then decide the existing platforms "didn't fit their style or the kinds of features they wanted" and start discussing how _they_ would…

A lot of them are happening right now. The most interesting thing about Web3 is just how much stuff is being built. Really innovative financial models, huge DAO that are beginning to work, NFT communities that actually help people. It's happening right now, just join the discords.

Any discords you would recommend? Interested in DAOs creating real value, not arguing about NFTs vs jpegs. :D Thanks!
Post reply on HN