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

511–520 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#511

Post by skunkworker »

xmly wrote: post #482
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"…

One correctiong. NFTs is just a tool. I believe what you mean is that Digital Arts market based on NFTs is a bubble.

Another application I've seen is using NFTs for reselling digital tickets.

Re: Why Web3?

#512

Post by grey-area »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #496
xmly wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One correctiong. NFTs is just a tool. I believe what you mean is that Digital Arts market based on NFTs is a bubble.

I agree and I wish more people understood this distinction. To say that NFTs are all scams is like saying that pixel shaders are all games. One is often used to implement the other, but they're not the same thing. NFTs will likely find niches outside of signifying ownership. For instance, I'd like to see them used to denote package maintainer status. That way you could have automation that allows package maintainers…

Pixel shaders are useful.

Re: Why Web3?

#513

Post by miracle2k »

jboy55 wrote: post #487
everfree wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending a few dollars on NFT "ownership" is worth it to me to have my name next to something, just like spending $10 on a League of Legends skin is worth it to some people to have their name next to a piece of artwork in a video game. I am literally interested in looking at a hash for fun, since it shows up online in NFT viewers with a little picture of it in my account. $10 is such a small amount of money to me, if…

You can also spend money and get a star named after you. I suppose you could assign an NFT to the stellar coordinates and sell the stars as well.

I'd totally buy a star NFT sold by God, which is the correct equivalent.

Re: Why Web3?

#514

Post by tempestn »

I agree with the comparison to the early web, but this is 1999, not 2003. I'm sure we'll find actual applications for blockchain tech eventually. Some will even be matured versions of what exists currently in DeFi and such. But just like every time people say, "This time it's different," it isn't. We're clearly in a bubble fueled by speculation and hype, and I expect it'll deflate eventually.

Re: Why Web3?

#515

Post by simonw »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #496
xmly wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One correctiong. NFTs is just a tool. I believe what you mean is that Digital Arts market based on NFTs is a bubble.

I agree and I wish more people understood this distinction. To say that NFTs are all scams is like saying that pixel shaders are all games. One is often used to implement the other, but they're not the same thing. NFTs will likely find niches outside of signifying ownership. For instance, I'd like to see them used to denote package maintainer status. That way you could have automation that allows package maintainers…

What happens to the package if the maintainer loses their password?

Re: Why Web3?

#516

Post by grey-area »

aboodman wrote: post #315
root_axis wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", Incorrect. As @saurik says, but I'll just restate: an NFT also tells you the ordering of all such statements within one context (a single blockchain). So you can know whether this was the first such transfer by this owner or a subsequent one. This is the entire purpose of distributed databases, including blockchains.

Actually you can’t know it was by an ‘owner’ because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature.

There are so many problems being skated over here about provenance and ownership and nfts provide nothing of value in that domain, they’re just a get rich quick scheme.

Re: Why Web3?

#517

Post by miracle2k »

manojlds wrote: post #479
nfw2 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think there is an interesting and nuanced conversation to be had on what fundamentally is different between an NFT and a baseball card. But that doesn't seem to be the conversation anyone is having.

I have been thinking of this as well. Pokemon cards as NFT would work, but why would the Pokemon company (the central entity) be ok with having a decentralised solution for it? What does the company get? NFTs need support of the big names but they already have better solutions for what they want. Currently NFTs are creating their own set of *mon cards but I don't see why I would want that. Another example - currently…

A couple of things to note here:

- New brands are created all the time; you don't have to be Nintendo to do so. maybe you get bought be Nintendo after.

- Big brands ultimately still need to go where the customers are.

- What the blockchain gives your digital good is a sense of permanence. This may not matter for an individual purchaser who simply wants to speculate in a hot market, but there would be no such market if the ownership ledger was run by single company. The narrative that these ownership records exists on a blockchain that will survive any particular startup failing underpins the whole thing.

Re: Why Web3?

#518

Post by CryptoPunk »

hestefisk wrote: post #498
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"…

Largely agree with this. The big promise of defi was to “bank the unbanked”, but Eth is - slow (15 txn/sec, 22-23 with the move to proof of stake) - expensive (I read somewhere that globally Eth users spend more on 30M USD in fees per day!) - too volatile to be reliable for everyday banking use cases - bad for the environment Blockchain technology is interesting and very powerful, but VCs and founders have all too of…

>>- slow (15 txn/sec, 22-23 with the move to proof of stake) - expensive (I read somewhere that globally Eth users spend more on 30M USD in fees per day!) -

This is no longer the case with L2 solutions, like zk-Rollups. See what StarkEx, which is one particular Validium/zk-Rollup L2 solution, is doing:

https://twitter.com/EliBenSasson/status/1475206185762578437?...

>>Past week, @ethereum ~ 9M txs. StarkEx ~ 6.25M TWO THIRDS THE TX COUNT OF ETHEREUM.

L2 solutions can process transactions at scales and fees a couple orders of magnitude greater and lower than Ethereum L1, respectively.

>>too volatile to be reliable for everyday banking use cases

Stablecoins aren't volatile, and they are a major, and rapidly growing use case of Ethereum

>>bad for the environment

Ethereum's energy consumption declines by 99.95% upon the completion of the transition to Proof of Stake.

Re: Why Web3?

#519

Post by cycrutchfield »

synapse_soap wrote: post #469
cycrutchfield wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can currently earn 6% on USD-backed stablecoins, and withdraw at any time. Compare that to your current checking or savings account. Sure, I’m comparing an investment with high counterparty risk to an FDIC-insured savings account. Seems like apples and oranges.

It's true that there's currently some regulatory arbitrage, but it's more than that. Our financial systems and products have been slow to change and have unnecessary friction and rent-seeking. Companies with competencies in fintech, insurtech, and web3 are building newer systems that provide a better consumer experience.

Like getting rugpulled? Or getting hacked and having funds unrecoverable? I’m not quite understanding the better customer experience you speak of.

Re: Why Web3?

#520

Post by cblconfederate »

malermeister wrote: post #314
cblconfederate wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not global though, countries like Iran have had banks disconnected, and subject to various political interests.

That's fair, but that seems like more of a feature than a bug. Why have a system we can't control if there's already one we can use for our interests?

the UN != NATO
Post reply on HN