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

671–680 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#671

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

moritonal wrote: post #588
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of the day, I guess I trust the goverment I vote for and the banks I decide on more than a distributed group of strangers. This is a pretty ignorant take on how blockchains work. Feel free to have your opinions, but if you really think that billions of dollars is secured in Bitcoin simply because "a distributed group of strangers" are trustworthy, you've missed the entire point and you don't actually und…

Come on, I read the original bitcoin paper upon its release xD I shortened my original post, but had explained that in the UK the Land-registry has started using a blockchain for record keeping. It worked well and is a good solution, but only whilst they stay as the sole writer. A distributed registry of home-ownership would have many risks, the largest being a sybil attack. Which Bitcoin is also liable to, where you…

You can have plenty of knowledge about Bitcoin, but your original comment about 'trust' reflects none of it. As you know, you don't 'trust' the group of strangers who run Bitcoin software to ensure the security of the protocol - that is in fact that opposite of the intention and for the most part the result. So yes, you failed to demonstrate any knowledge of how blockchains work and now you are introducing a red herring to the original argument.

By the way, Bitcoin does not have that problem because the story you linked is about a wild fork of Bitcoin which is unsustainable anyways - not even counting the fact that BSV is not intended as a file hosting service. Perhaps see what IPFS or other file hosting coins and protocols do to stop that problem. And as hard as it is to swallow, there are plenty of other ways to obscure the uploading of illegal data across all sorts of centralized services - but we don't just get rid of the internet.

Re: Why Web3?

#672

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

epistasis wrote: post #634
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

One base case that seems reasonably compelling is a distributed key store to manage public key exchange without concern of ever being trivially spoofed. I don't think anyone really knows what the right balance of on and off chain data transactions is - it depends a lot on chain efficiency and what can simply be done peer-to-peer.

I'm thinking broadly, but the idea of exchanging keys on a distributed system and then engaging in services using those keys peer-to-peer is appealing. You can audit all the software, and you use zero centralized third parties. I think it brings back a DIY attitude to the internet.

If you're tempted to lecture me on your thoughts about what 'normal people' want and how its not what I just said, I would pre-emptivly argue you do not consider that normal people often co-opt what the inside few value first, and that if a system like this remains niche I would still value it. Web3 on this site is too much about dunking on grifters and too little about focusing on what the grifters are stealing.

Re: Why Web3?

#674

Post by miracle2k »

shagie wrote: post #660
miracle2k wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? This can be included immutably on-chain. Mostly it is done off-chain, which is ok, because enforcement of any such license would happen off-chain and in courts anyway. Frequently, no license details are given at all, which may also be ok, because people who collect fine art aren't doing it for th…

> In that sense, very limited use-rights are actually required Specifically, what use rights does an NFT grant? For photographs (and I have a small gallery of them collected over the years in art festivals and galleries), they're hanging on my wall... though I can't publicly display them (that's part of the copyright). If I sell a print of a digital image (that I captured with a camera) and I sell a NFT of the same d…

The NFT is just an entry in a ledger. What rights the buyer has to the intellectual property that is your photo is decided by your respective jurisdictions. In general, I would think this is largely up to you - i.e. only the rights you explicitly granted.

However, I believe in the US, there is no right to even download a copy of a file on the internet for purely personal reasons. I could see an NFT buyer successfully argue in court that this right is implied, even if not specified.

What happens if the file goes offline? I would think that this will not effect an existing license that you have previously granted. Of course, the buyer may struggle to make use of their license rights if they did not retain a copy of the image themselves.

Re: Why Web3?

#675

Post by kinship7 »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #519
synapse_soap wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rugpulls and other hacks are a risk, but will become less of a risk over time as the tech gets more stable, and third party insurance solutions like Nexus Mutual become more widespread.

The better customer experience in the lending example is higher yields on savings and checking accounts.

Re: Why Web3?

#676

Post by grey-area »

miracle2k wrote: post #641
grey-area wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Creating something is distinct from owning the copyright (though many jurisdictions automatically assign to creators unless otherwise assigned). For example illustrators for hire immediately assign copyright to someone else, so these are distinct.

The art market is a racket entirely divorced from value, if you want to emulate that, good luck to you, but know what you're getting into, the comparison with the manipulated and celebrity led current art market is entirely unflattering to NFTs as it shows them up for what they are - a get rich quick scheme.

I think this market will disappear when the cryptocurrency bubble bursts, which seems imminent now it has mainstream attention again and with the coming withdrawal of stimulus.

Re: Why Web3?

#677

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

stale2002 wrote: post #664
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 y…

You are conflating several issues. Yes, a creator presumably would have ways to cheat the system, for example by selling the same thing on different blockchains (as mentioned elsewhere). But eventually they would be revealed to be frauds and presumably the worth of their creations would plummet.

To verify the identity of a creator is a solvable problem, though, and is also yet another issue than the "sell it multiple times" problem.

Re: Why Web3?

#678

Post by yunohn »

jsemrau wrote: post #661
yunohn wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But /how/ are you stealing attention from Google & Facebook? The most overlap I can think of is a FB group being replaced by your website.

Re: Why Web3?

#679

Post by moritonal »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #671
moritonal wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, I read the original bitcoin paper upon its release xD I shortened my original post, but had explained that in the UK the Land-registry has started using a blockchain for record keeping. It worked well and is a good solution, but only whilst they stay as the sole writer. A distributed registry of home-ownership would have many risks, the largest being a sybil attack. Which Bitcoin is also liable to, where you…

You can have plenty of knowledge about Bitcoin, but your original comment about 'trust' reflects none of it. As you know, you don't 'trust' the group of strangers who run Bitcoin software to ensure the security of the protocol - that is in fact that opposite of the intention and for the most part the result. So yes, you failed to demonstrate any knowledge of how blockchains work and now you are introducing a red herr…

So far you've just said I'm wrong. Let me try clarify. The value of your coins relies supposedly on your ability to exchange them, which in turn relies on the miners following the protocol in self-interest which happens to line up with your interest. That sounds like you're trusting the miners to continue mining the fork you prefer?

Re: Why Web3?

#680

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

moritonal wrote: post #679
mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have plenty of knowledge about Bitcoin, but your original comment about 'trust' reflects none of it. As you know, you don't 'trust' the group of strangers who run Bitcoin software to ensure the security of the protocol - that is in fact that opposite of the intention and for the most part the result. So yes, you failed to demonstrate any knowledge of how blockchains work and now you are introducing a red herr…

So far you've just said I'm wrong. Let me try clarify. The value of your coins relies supposedly on your ability to exchange them, which in turn relies on the miners following the protocol in self-interest which happens to line up with your interest. That sounds like you're trusting the miners to continue mining the fork you prefer?

The miners are interested in making money. Why would they mine a fork which the large majority of users and traders value at $0?
Post reply on HN