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

631–640 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#631

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

kabes wrote: post #545
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How's that different/better from just passing an rsa key around?

Sharing private keys is bad practice for a lot of reasons.

Presumably in this case you're doing this without a third party like github (e.g. the code is stored on ipfs).

Rotating that rsa key requires all of your users to update things on their side so they'll continue accepting updates signed by the new key. That's a problem because you want key rotation to be low-effort so people do it just in case, and notifying every user is the opposite of that.

On the other hand, when a new user or organization takes over for an old one re: publishing updated versions (presumably there's a smart contract that gets updated with the latest trusted hash by the tokenholder), that's an event where you really do want all you users to scrutinize the new maintainer.

Key transfer is opaque, NFT transfer is transparent.

Re: Why Web3?

#632

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

grey-area wrote: post #512
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Token ring protocol was useful, back in its day. Those tokens were also non fungible (admittedly, there were weaker assurances around that nonfungibility, but I think that's orthogonal).

Re: Why Web3?

#633

Post by telxosser »

malermeister wrote: post #203
runako wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember so much of the time I spent on IRC and XMPP overlapped with the period in my life when I had the fewest financial resources. It would have been net negative for me if the popular chat spaces had been accompanied by any kind of toll.

Big plus to this point. The idea behind web3 seems to be "the web, but everything is an attempt to gauge people for money now". How is that better? Who asked for more money to be involved everywhere? I just want an open space to hang out with people and share ideas and data, I don't want everything to become a gated community.

The worst part to me is how it would change the content. If we were all getting paid for this conversation it would not be the same conversation as right now + getting paid.

So often my opinion on a topic is so different than the opinion I think will get the most upvotes.

It is really why I think the whole concept is doomed to fail.

Re: Why Web3?

#634

Post by epistasis »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #484
shagie wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down. I'm still not clear how this would work. In a web 3 twitter clone that prevents one from ever being "restricted, limited or shut down", where does the crypto-tweet live? Where is it stored? How well does this scale? What does it take to crypto-tweet (do you have to pay some crypto currency to have it be out there)? What…

To start you Tweet off chain, and you only verify on chain. Most of the skeptics here seem to take pride in their shallow understanding of blockchain - most of these questions are posed with some idea that people want to post a million tweets a day on the Bitcoin blockchain. People smart enough to answer your questions don't actually hang out here - I would know, because I hang out with them where they are welcome. A…

Ok so if the data is off chain for the tweets, that off-chain resource becomes the gatekeeper, doesn't it?

I am becoming convinced that there may be value somewhere in this open database, but I'm also convinced that 99% of the people advocating for web3 and making a ton of "money" on current token speculation do not know what this value will be.

The most convincing application I can think of is a PGP for the modern world that everyone can use without hours and hours of tech training. But I think there will be more.

Re: Why Web3?

#635

Post by z3t4 »

giantrobot wrote: post #316
quickthrower2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can send two of those assignment signatures to two different parties simultaneously. Is there a way in your system to avoid the double send?

You just invent a thing called notaries. You'll have to go back in time to do it since they already exist but that's besides the point. Anyways, a notary puts their reputation/legal liability on the line and counter signs your transaction. Since they've been granted license by a real legal entity with guns and jails they commit to verifying a transaction occurred at X time. Monies for the transaction can be put into…

dish and washing machines are slow and expensive (use a lot of electricity). But in turn you save some time.

Re: Why Web3?

#636

Post by tshaddox »

boomlinde wrote: post #604
tshaddox wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. No, you expect it to be one of hundreds to hundreds of thousands of exact copies that anyone else could buy regardless of whether you own a copy or not, and that will usually be repressed if the supply runs dry. It's the product of a record pressing/CD replication machine more than…

But again, this thread is about how different separate creative works from one artist are, not how many identical copies of a single work the artist releases.

Re: Why Web3?

#637

Post by hestefisk »

arcticbull wrote: post #560
hestefisk wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Largely agree with this. The big promise of defi was to “bank the unbanked” The un-banked aren't un-banked because there are no banks, or even because banks are inaccessible. They are un-banked because they do not have money. This is a social problem characterized by folks falling through the cracks. It's a lack of social safety net, a lack of unionization, a lack of inflation-adjusted minimum wage, a lack of healt…

I agree with your views in a country like the US where banks are widespread and people have Internet access. However in a country like Indonesia it’s quite different. Only 50% of the population have a bank account, and even if they have a bank account they might not have sufficient credit history to apply for a loan for their business or a home. Banking is much more than just a checking or savings account with a debit card. DeFi theoretically has a lot of potential to disrupt in these countries (as many people own a mobile phone), but it looks like it will be up to the horizontal platforms like Grab and Gojek.

Re: Why Web3?

#638

Post by emptybottle »

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"…

NFTs can also contain unlockable content which gives them utility, and more than one edition of a given NFT can be minted. Gas fees vary drastically depending on the chain.

Digital signatures could provide some sense of ownership, but how does that solve transferring value/payment, especially the common scenario of splits/royalty percentages on subsequent sales?

As a concept I don’t think they are going away, but their implementation will vary over time.

Re: Why Web3?

#640

Post by pfraze »

discardedrefuse wrote: post #330

I've been noticing this web3 buzzword picking up steam on here for months now. And it all feels very manufactured (much how metaverse has been co-opted and tainted by Facebook). I suspect this web3 push is just cryptobros shoehorning their schemes into relevance. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=web3 On the other hand, if you're paying attention, you might have noticed a push back to web1 and even older tec…

People are right that Ethereum has used the web3 term for a while. The recent uptick is from Chris Dixon and other VCs doing a marketing push on it.
Post reply on HN