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

661–670 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#661

Post by jsemrau »

yunohn wrote: post #616
jsemrau wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to appear as spammy, but please have a look at my project finclout.io. Here people are incentivised to moderate and curate content. Thus supporting the build-up of trust and clout. The incentivces are coming through the monetary policy of the participating proof-of-stake chains, so it's not necessary to put money in to get money out. It's simply taking some of the economic value away from Google/FB. If you…

> It's simply taking some of the economic value away from Google/FB. If you look at their insane profit margins, it's worthwhile to attack. I believe that you believe that Google/FB are competitors to your finclout.io. But I think you are very confused about your business model versus Google/FB. Neither of them are doing what you do - you are competing with blogs and social media groups/channels that curate investmen…

Yes, that is correct. finclout is not directly competing with GOOG/FB from a business model but from an attention perspective.

Re: Why Web3?

#662

Post by Gravyness »

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"…

> None of this is about giving power back to individuals

Exactly, when people claimed web3 is about the individual and decentralization I knew 100% it is a power play being attempted by some stupid people who have no idea how the web works.

Re: Why Web3?

#663

Post by jbergens »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #564
arcticbull wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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've never met a single person who had money but couldn't get a bank account* - have you? I don't agree with defi but this is absolutely a problem in a lot of rural america. People with money, who get paid, but without a bank so they have to take their checks to gas stations who take huge fees. That you haven't met someone like this isn't surprising at all.

This sounds like parts of the US has a problem with checks and a lack of good, digital bank services.

I can transfer money and pay my bills with my phone. I can even transfer money to people not having the same bank as I have. I did it today, it took 30s or so and the recipient could immediately see the money on her phone. Where I live we also tend to use cards a LOT. I can pay in almost any store with my debit card and the money is drawn from my bank account right away. It was decades since I've saw a check.

Re: Why Web3?

#664

Post by stale2002 »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #652
stale2002 wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

" and this is really the only part that matters." No it isn't. The point of NFTs is to prove ownership and facilitate trade. Not identifying creators.

But you can't prove ownership of the actual art, with an NFT.

You can only prove ownership of that specific crypto transaction, which might be just a fake NFT, or duplicate.

There is nothing about crypto that actually proves it was the "real" NFT, or real art.

You need something else to actually prove that you own the "real" piece of art or NFT.

> Not identifying creators

If you are unable to identify creators then you are unable to prove ownership, because that NFT could just be a fake one, or even a duplicate that the creator has issued many times without you knowing it.

With crypto alone, you'd only be able to prove that you own something that might just be a fake or duplicate, and anyone can make as many fakes or duplicates as they want, so that's not really proving ownership.

Re: Why Web3?

#665

Post by mch82 »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #653
mch82 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reference is “Free” by Chris Anderson, https://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris-Anderson/dp... DHH has written about abundance as part of his approach to Rails, https://world.hey.com/dhh/i-won-t-let-you-pay-me-for-my-open... The “Post-scarcity economy” article on Wikipedia lists a number of references, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy Generally, computing trends toward abundance. Comp…

Right but none of these folks were associated with the origins of the net or the web at all. They're people who either inferred post-scarcity through trends they saw or wanted to apply an ideology to the net and the web. DHH is the only technical person in that list. The reason this distinction is important is because a lot of folks try to make the case that the ideological origins of computer networking were with an…

Tim Berners-Lee, “The Many Meanings of Open”, https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Open.html

> “The World Wide Web turns 25 next year. We have come a long way, but we must all continue to push for these various forms of openness in the appropriate places. Only then can we ensure that the Web is for everyone.”

While his essay doesn’t use the words “abundance” or “post-scarcity”, it gets pretty close. My guess is that the guy who gave the Internet away for free probably approaches technology from an abundance perspective.

> “…but this seems incorrect to me.”

I’m curious what has led you to the opinion these people are wrong? I’m interested to know about histories of the web that reflect a philosophy of scarcity.

Re: Why Web3?

#666

Post by jandrese »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #477
jandrese wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A NFT is just a digital receipt, and there's nothing that ties the receipt to the original creator or work except for a bit of text that the person creating the NFT has full control over. So they are effectively worthless for determining ownership, especially for copyright purposes. The "non-fungible" part refers only to the receipt, not the original work.

> NFT is just a digital receipt Right but a receipt of what? A receipt, evidence, or proof, that a transaction took place. But a transaction of what? One party got money. What did the other party get? A proof that s/he paid the money. For what? For the proof that s/he paid the money ... for the proof that s/he paid the money for the proof that ... LOL. Makes me think that I should make an NFT out of Brooklyn Bridge.…

It is proof that you added an entry to a blockchain. That's it.

Your last sentence hit the nail straight on the head. You can in fact make a Brooklyn Bridge NFT and you would hardly be alone.

Re: Why Web3?

#667

Post by giantrobot »

z3t4 wrote: post #635
giantrobot wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dish and washing machines are not slow. They cut out whole portions of the task of washing dishes or clothes.

Re: Why Web3?

#668

Post by rsanek »

>That was also a time of great cynicism. We almost did not get our first fund raised. Nobody was buying the story we were telling.

Not sure I understand the parallel being drawn here when the market cap of crypto currently stands at over $2T. Clearly, plenty of people are buying.

Re: Why Web3?

#669

Post by skinnymuch »

z3t4 wrote: post #284
capableweb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think for example if the Bitcoin creator would get 10 cent every time someone mentioned Bitcoin Eh, how would that work exactly? > Or the easiest business model of them all, sell ads on your org site That's great, but I can ensure you: none of us in the cryptocurrency ecosystem wants anything to do with ads. Also, can't really build a big business by having ads on your website.

There are casual games that are mostly funded by merchandise (Angry Birds). The game makes the brand popular, then they sell kid toys and clothing. I don't know exactly how you would get paid by just someone mentioning your trademark, but it might be your business innovation - as in order to reach unicorn status you either need to innovate in the business area, or innovate in the product area - you do not need to inn…

> I don't know exactly how you would get paid by just someone mentioning your trademark, but it might be your business innovation

Why not go bigger and get paid any time people say anything?

Re: Why Web3?

#670

Post by Karrot_Kream »

mch82 wrote: post #665
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but none of these folks were associated with the origins of the net or the web at all. They're people who either inferred post-scarcity through trends they saw or wanted to apply an ideology to the net and the web. DHH is the only technical person in that list. The reason this distinction is important is because a lot of folks try to make the case that the ideological origins of computer networking were with an…

Tim Berners-Lee, “The Many Meanings of Open”, https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Open.html > “The World Wide Web turns 25 next year. We have come a long way, but we must all continue to push for these various forms of openness in the appropriate places. Only then can we ensure that the Web is for everyone.” While his essay doesn’t use the words “abundance” or “post-scarcity”, it gets pretty close. My guess is that the g…

> While his essay doesn’t use the words “abundance” or “post-scarcity”, it gets pretty close. My guess is that the guy who gave the Internet away for free probably approaches technology from an abundance perspective.

Thanks for that essay. I actually didn't see anything that got close to post scarcity. The only point that seemed to touch on it was the point about Open Access but it seemed to be closely scoped to academic work.

> My guess is that the guy who gave the Internet away for free probably approaches technology from an abundance perspective.

Maybe? Giving things away for free doesn't lead to a post-scarcity mindset. Not every person that donated to charity or volunteers with their time thinks the world can get there either.

> I’m curious what has led you to the opinion these people are wrong? I’m interested to know about histories of the web that reflect a philosophy of scarcity.

It's hard because a "philosophy of scarcity" is pretty ill-defined. As early as 2016 [1] Berners-Lee was pushing the W3C to standardize web payments. And HTTP status code 402 Payment Required was in the HTTP spec since at least RFC 2068 [2] in 1997. So at least since then someone thought that the internet would be used to facilitate payment.

But that's enough uncertainty for me to comfortably say that the internet was not designed for (or even against) post scarcity in mind. Therefore there's no ideological connection between post-scarcity and the net or the web.

[1]: https://www.w3.org/blog/wpwg/2016/12/16/web-payments-tractio...

[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2068

Post reply on HN