Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

641–650 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because there is no other meaningful way to "own" the thing the signature refers to, if you apply a concept of ownership as you would to a physical piece of art. Being in physical possession of the bytes to a JPEG is not what gives people the sense that they own this piece of art in the way they might own a painting, because the bytes are so cheaply copied. Owning the intellectual property behind a JPEG is an en…

Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response: You created the image. You own the copyright to the image (which has legal weight). You may restrict distribution or reproduction in those situations. These are all more meaningfully ownership than owning a digital receipt on the blockchain pointing to a url on a 3rd party site, which is more akin to buying a sta…

> Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response:

By my count you listed just one - owning the copyright. But as I said, while owning intellectual property is certainly meaningful (and can be valuable), it is not art collecting. There is a reason why there exists no art market where people are trading copyright claims.

As a collector, I don't want to be in the business of managing an intellectual property licensing enterprise. Yet, I want the artwork I own to become a well-known, celebrated cultural object; the artist also wants this, and thankfully - incentivised and empowered by still owning the copyright - will try to manage their career to achieve this.

We can all agree that crypto lends itself to rampant and unrestricted speculation / gambling, which attracts all kinds of people looking for a cash grab or get-rich scheme. Those speculative bubbles have been going on for years, and in all likelihood will continue. It's an issue that artists and collectors in this space are struggling to deal with; people don't like that new releases are sold out in minutes, because flippers and their bots think they can make a profit (this is not dissimilar to event ticketing issues).

However, artists who have experimented with blockchain 10 years ago, were not looking for marks to scam. While pics of lions will go up and down in price, and people who bought even respectable art at the height of the bubble will be looking at a loss in resale value, this market will not disappear; it provides a product that artists and collectors find useful.

I am not of the opinion that this will be as world-changing and all-encompassing as web3 proponents proclaim. Art collection is a niche in the real world, and it will be a slightly larger niche in the digital realm.

Re: Why Web3?

#642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is another insane aspect, correct. There's a big overlap between crypto advocates and people who feel very strongly about freedom of speech, but in reality the world they'd build would involve a lot of self-censorship for financial reasons.

Freedom of speech only for those that can afford it.

Re: Why Web3?

#643
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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why Web3?

#644
post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't work, because anyone can falsely claim to be the artist.

Obviously you need a way to identify the real artist. For example if they put their public key on their official web site, it would be a pretty good indicator. People also used to create chains of trust with public key infrastructure. Maybe you trust Bob, and Bob trusts Alice, and Alice has personally met the artist at Burning Man and verified their key there. Or you go to the government and let them provide a regist…

> Obviously you need a way to identify the real artist

Thats the point though. Nothing about the blockchain has anything to do with this part, and this is really the only part that matters.

So, once again, my point stands. The private key has nothing to do with identifying the real artist. Instead, it is something else entirely that identifies the real artist.

> on their official web site

So then the official website is what is doing the identifying here, of what the real art it. Not the blockchain. It is the artist themselves, saying "This art is the real one", not cryptography.

It is not proof of work, or proof of signed private keys. Instead, it is proof of "official website".

> In any case it is a separate problem.

It is the only problem that matters. The actual way to identify the real artist, separate from the blockchain, is what is actually doing all of the heavy lifting here. The private key isn't doing anything on the important part.

Re: Why Web3?

#645
post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being provocative -- finance will not totally disappear, but it will play a greatly diminished role in human economies. Successful national economies will adopt a tech-driven, centralized approach to economics. The global, eternally-fungible USD, and all the problems it brings, will cease to exist. Non-transferable, expiring, digital currencies may be employed in limited domains, for example "food credits" or "…

What an articulate description of your views. Thank you! I know it was only a subset of your comment, but I’m very curious how an expiring subcurrency would function in an real economy. How would you propose regulations work for a food credits “black market”, e.g. I will pay you 150 general-purpose capital credits for your 200 food bucks? Would non-digital cash be completely done away with? What about objects of valu…

All of these limited currencies would exist on a centralized government platform; no physical currency.

There would be no third-party ability to create/transform these currencies. So all swaps/trades would have to be done on the official platform or via its APIs, which you could of course integrate into third-party websites. The govt could even run markets (with tariffs to discourage volatility) to swap between different currencies.

Frankly, >90% of the tech infrastructure is already here in America between corps like Amazon and Stripe. We just need to go the extra mile to "nationalize" these corps and integrate them into one huge economic system. A monumental task, to be sure. But the road is already being paved by less liberal nations.

Re: Why Web3?

#646
post #556
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't what users want in general, and you don't need crypto to get it. What you're asking for exists with things like mastodon. No one advocating how/why they think crypto will succeed when things like mastodon failed. Hell, RSS failed. The average user wants easy to use, easy to connect, free, and fast services. Crypto fails at all of these.

I never said anything about crypto. I said that you should _not_ conflate decentralization with blockchain and yet people attack me as if I was advocating for crypto. This just proves my original point that people hate crypto so much that they automatically attack decentralization in general.

Or maybe you didn’t communicate your point effectively.

My point holds for non crypto decentralization as well. Consumers choose against, no matter how much tech people like us want it.

Re: Why Web3?

#647
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…

Let's assume that Ethereum gets properly sharded, and web3 solves all these technical challenges somehow, because that's supposedly where Ethereum is headed. Why would I as a user prefer Twitter or prefer web3 decentralized microblogging? With Twitter, even with minimal gate keeping, I still get a spam/scam message only once every month or so. But minimal gatekeeping is soooooo much better than email, where I get so…

> Why would I as a user prefer Twitter or prefer web3 decentralized microblogging?

I'm even going to ask "why do you need web3 for decentralized microblogging?"

What problem does this future tech solve that Mastodon does not currently solve? What is the current solution lacking and is easier to solve in a hypothetical web3 world?

--

The "use wallet for login" I contend has an even bigger problem than "reuse the same password" for the average person.

Losing a device with a wallet (e.g. phone) becomes an even bigger issue.

Wallet stealing scripts/malware would compromise even more of a person's identity.

Additional difficulties in being able to recover an account if a person loses access to their wallet (e.g. drive failure).

I believe that existing password management systems do a better job of this for the average person and it would be better to have people use those than trying to get everyone to have a crypto wallet.

That has the added advantage that password management systems work wherever there's a password rather than a mishmash of "this site uses this wallet" and some sites will never get to the point of using a wallet for account management (compare how many have a 'login with apple' even though that's been around for a while and is pushed by Big Tech).

Re: Why Web3?

#648
post #646
post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about crypto. I said that you should _not_ conflate decentralization with blockchain and yet people attack me as if I was advocating for crypto. This just proves my original point that people hate crypto so much that they automatically attack decentralization in general.

Or maybe you didn’t communicate your point effectively. My point holds for non crypto decentralization as well. Consumers choose against, no matter how much tech people like us want it.

Ok, so what? I still want it. Is everything that hasn't reached mass adoption a failure?

Re: Why Web3?

#649
post #557
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…

I never said anything about crypto so I don't feel qualified to answer your questions. I'm talking about decentralization in general and what I want to see. Blockchain is probably not the tool for that, which was also my original point (don't conflate decentralization with blockchain).

What is lacking in the current decentralized technologies? Mastodon has been around for half a decade, is actively supported, and is part of the Fediverse.

One of the difficulties that I have is that the decentralization proposals don't seem to offer anything over the existing solutions out there aside from the "I want to build it again."

Don't get me wrong - building it again is a legitimate reason. There are several services out there that I'd like to build again... though I also want to do it because I feel that there's a problem that the existing solution doesn't properly solve or has a less than optimal underlying model for my use case.

So, I return to the question of "what is this going to do better?" This can help lead to feature discovery of existing platforms (the "wait, it does that too?"), the addition of missing requirements to those existing platforms, or the beginnings of a paradigm shift for how one works with such services.

I want to know what's missing so that I can work on the making it better. I don't see what is currently missing in the current (distributed) solutions.

Re: Why Web3?

#650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If BTC is your idea of a failure, being the catalyst for a +2 trillion dollar industry, then i guess failure isnt bad at all. Again you are just claiming things ignoring everything else. Lifes too short for haters. good luck

Your arguments, much like your head, are full of hot air.

Ahh the last stage of loosing an argument. Personal insults. As I said, good luck.
Post reply on HN