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

451–460 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#451

Post by Rapzid »

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 all always happening right now?

Re: Why Web3?

#452

Post by vanusa »

tehjoker wrote: post #218
closetnerd wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" wer…

We're over ten years in at this point with insane investment and nothing has appeared.

You can't dismiss the $69 million Beeple sale as "nothing". Truly, it is a watershed moment in human history.

Re: Why Web3?

#453

Post by easrng »

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.

Timestamping servers. Something like RFC 3161 or WebPKI's Certificate Trust logs.

Re: Why Web3?

#454

Post by mvkel »

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…

Market-then-build is a fallacy that makes a compelling story but few, if any, real world examples.

That’s kind of the conundrum of web3. It’s all marketing, no build.

Re: Why Web3?

#455

Post by arwineap »

jsemrau wrote: post #429
hooande wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

scanned your home page, have no idea what this is or how it can help me

Noted. Will put an example on the page. That might make it easier. The main value proposition is that if you are investing, then you can earn extra money by providing context on recent news for other investors. Currently this is done for free on other social sites.

So a platform for pumping/selling your picks?

Re: Why Web3?

#456

Post by recursive »

IX-103 wrote: post #387
lowwave wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One company controls the specification and reference implementation. These gimmicks tend to be "open" so contributions can flow in from anywhere, but the company has full priority and benefits by controlling the pace and final result. Google Chrome for example

Google doesn't control the w3c. And Google Chrome is severely limited in what they can push due to threatened/actual anti-trust litigation. Their whole "privacy sandbox" thing is being done under the scrutiny of quite a few governments in addition to practically every digital advertising association on earth.

True. But they can implement non-standard things. And they're not compelled to implement the standards. And sometimes they don't.

Re: Why Web3?

#457

Post by aboodman »

easrng wrote: post #453
aboodman wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Timestamping servers. Something like RFC 3161 or WebPKI's Certificate Trust logs.

That doesn't help you know the transfer is final, it just gives you a timestamp that the transfer occurred at which somebody reputable has attested to. You can't know that the owner didn't sign a transfer to some other buyer with an earlier timestamp.

Re: Why Web3?

#458

Post by throwaway984393 »

brightstep wrote: post #246
throwaway984393 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralized trust is another way of saying a grapevine. Grapevine communication (or trust) is only useful in specific circumstances, and is often actively detrimental. Why are so many people just going along with these concepts as if they make sense? It's like nobody's using their brain.

I think there's a class of crypto believers who see "Web3" as a political movement, a way to dilute or break the power of institutions like e.g. the fed, Facebook, etc. To them, the grapevine is a secret sauce that will magically eliminate centralized power.

Which is ironic when you think about it. Those are the aims of Anarchist political philosophy, which is often anti-capitalist. So you could say Web3 is the "Capitalist-Anarchist Internet"

Re: Why Web3?

#459

Post by scyclow »

vanusa wrote: post #446
scyclow wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It provides value to people who want to compute things on a public network that no single party controls. We can argue about whether or not that's a worthwhile thing for people to value until the cows come home, but I think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

But point taken. I'll avoid using fancy technical lingo like "BFT" or "cryptographic" on hacker news any more.

Re: Why Web3?

#460

Post by vanusa »

scyclow wrote: post #459
vanusa wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gibberish because you don't justify why this innovation provides value . Instead you just slather more fancy technical lingo on top.

It provides value to people who want to compute things on a public network that no single party controls. We can argue about whether or not that's a worthwhile thing for people to value until the cows come home, but I think it's beyond the scope of this conversation. But point taken. I'll avoid using fancy technical lingo like "BFT" or "cryptographic" on hacker news any more.

Yeah, this "cryptographic" stuff is just way over our heads.
Post reply on HN