Live data from Hacker News

Web3 is centralized

blog.wesleyac.com

371–380 of 497 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I just stop using web3 as a catch-all for the things I work on (i.e. IPFS, Crypto Wallets, Merkle Trees) and just start naming them one by one everything will be OK and it's not a marketing buzzword anymore? Or should I be aware that I am in fact only building marketing funnels even though I find value in the technology being built?

The problem with "web3" is it implies/its proponents claim that it's a successor to web 2.0. How does it make sense for this crypto "assettech" stuff to replace/supersede the current www stack? Naming it "web3" just comes off as a cheap attention grab.

From what I've read web3 creates a new stack in the sense that ENS is used instead of traditional domain names, public key cryptography replaces traditional auth, smart contracts replace application backends and the blockchain acts as the database storing assets, user generated content and profiles (with large or volatile data stored on IPFS).

Re: Web3 is centralized

#372
post #177

The main issue with "Web3" is that it moves records of transactions from many private places to one public place. Sure this one place may not be controlled by a single entity, but it facilitates tracking at an unprecedented level. Cryptocurrencies are the ultimate example of this and are an absolute boon to tax collectors, forensic accountants and fraudsters. In our current economy financial transactions are recorded…

A few issues with this: 1. Not all crypto currencies are public. See monero, haven, secret network. Although that last one depends on some specific features of some Intel processors... I'm of the opinion that the pseudonymous nature of public blockchains is very beneficial to society. I would love it if I could see what companies, governments, and people near me were spending their money on. It would enable me to mak…

> I would love it if I could see what companies, governments, and people near me were spending their money on. It would enable me to make better decisions.

I dont get this. I mean, spend your money on the things you need, and if there's money left after that, spend it on things you want. Dont spend it on something your neighbour wants. Let them spend their money on that.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#373
post #361
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not “without using fiat”: cryptocurrencies are pure fiat currencies but with very weak backing — people need sovereign currencies to pay taxes, pay or get paid for government functions, and participate in large preexisting economies. Nobody has to use cryptocurrency for those reasons and the variable, usually high, fees discourage use — especially in the case of Bitcoin where the economic model incentivizes hoar…

> cryptocurrencies are pure fiat currencies I thought even Bitcoin maximalists have given up on this nonsense by now? Fiat money is legal tender backed by the taxation power of a nation state and ultimately, the monopoly on violence. This is why I always write crypto"currency" -- even naming so, crypto shills have pulled an ingenious move pretending their scam is a currency which it utterly is not.

The standard definition of a fiat currency is that it’s not backed by some kind of asset and thus has only the value given by social convention. The most widespread examples are backed by sovereign states and thus have the weight you describe but there have been private ones as well.

This is why I described it as a very weak one because it doesn’t even have the commitment of a bank behind it and the extremely highly operating costs means there’s a real long-term risk of not being able to find a buyer.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#374
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web3 is a buzzword that makes it sound like something which it isn't, same with AI - dumb but pattern recognition is still useful. I wouldn't call trustless programmable money with defined supply irrelevant since there is no alternative in the mainstream financial system. You are talking about just one function - transfer of value - but that already works just fine. For your points: You can have much lower transactio…

> You are talking about just one function - transfer of value I do not. I am talking of the only way money enters this system. If there would be no money in the system no one would care. At the end of the day, in this time and place, our society decided money is the ultimate goal. I don't like it but it's what it is. > You can have much lower transaction fees than in Visa / Mastercard First of all: it's nonsensical t…

> Second, it's not inherent to the money system to use Visa / Mastercard. You can use other ways to transfer money -- but again, this is irrelevant.

To highlight this, Americans are grappling with Zelle (which is just rolled out) and ACH while their neighbors to the north have Interac running relatively seamlessly and Europeans have SEPA and even some countries have local feeless/reasonably priced quick transfer systems like Swish/iDeal, and discussing how Asians handle their transfer and payments would just shake heads on why those systems aren't available stateside (I'll pick India's UPI and the (mainland) Chinese system as representatives, but that doesn't mean similar systems aren't available elsewhere).

Re: Web3 is centralized

#375
post #288

The problem with web3 is not that it's centralized -- that's irrelevant. The fundamental problem with all crypto"currencies" is as follows: the world uses real currencies and there is only one way this enters into the world of crypto"currencies": by someone selling a coin to someone else. Thus, regardless of what crypto"currency" we are talking about, it would be a zero sum game if not for transaction fees. However,…

Though I generally agree with the sentiment, there is one significant use case -- transferring money across country borders. Currently, transaction fees on cash transactions are much much higher than they are on cryptocurrencies (maybe except bitcoin) and so this would mean that, in theory, they could be used as a way to transfer goods across country borders.

This has always struck me as…I don't think a "weak" use-case is the terminology I'm looking for, but maybe "fragile"? What I'm trying to get at is that I'm not sure that the existing non-crypto money transfer services have to charge as much as they do to be profitable. If cryptocurrency-based transfers get popular enough that they're perceived as a threat, then I suspect Western Union and friends -- or perhaps new entrants to the market -- will introduce "new products" that are more competitively priced.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's not safe to use web3 unless you're comfortable analyzing decompiled source code" is a super good sign for the future of the ecosystem. Plenty of people don't de-compile or read the source, don't engage with random tokens credited to their address, and the ecosystem around using "smart" contracts has grown since 2015. Not my problem if people want to use/trust something else (others audits for example) without…

> As a society, we have expected more and more people to learn how to read and write for basic literacy over hundreds of years. Those who know how to read and write code will have a leg up for that expanding literacy set for engaging with digital things and those who don't will be left behind esp as more aspects of life are governed/mediated through code and this goes beyond the whatever is being branded as "web3". W…

> We've also extended protections for people lagging behind, for example by putting restrictions on what kinds of contracts can legally be entered into and voiding contracts that one party could not have reasonably been expected to understand, or entered into under duress or undue influence.

And are constantly bypassed in practice by those with more resources than others wrt engaging with the various legal systems (or corruption thereof) around the world.

> None of these protections exist under "smart" contracts

Not true, some people buy off chain legal insurance for a particular juridiction and only deal with protocols they have some legal recourse over. Some use multisig accounts with trusted parties.

> which is exactly why we can't and won't allow code to govern or mediate life as web3 envisions.

There is no shared we though, some individuals (and governments) will adapt to it, some wont, some contracts/cryptocurrencies will survive, some wont, and people will make the convenience trade-offs like they always have had as things change. If you are only willing to try to force someone else to do your dirty work of imposing on peoples freedoms, you'll be behind those who are willing to put you in the ground themselves to defend such irrespective of any particular jurisdictions laws.

> Your dystopian vision of "oops, you lost your retirement savings because you didn't decompile that contract before interacting with it, too bad", or "oops, you lost your retirement savings because someone beat your wife with a baseball bat until you handed over your private key, sucks to be you"--in short, the dystopia of "code is law"--flies in the face of thousands of years of jurisprudence and civilization.

Bad things will continue to happen to some people even with out smart contracts or cryptocurrencies (bad things which don't happen to most people in the course of their lifetime btw), but if you want to live your life in fear as an excuse to not learn and adapt in face of bad things that may happen, that's on you.

> Once the goldrush hype wears off people will realize how heinous the fundamental idea is and dump it in the gutter of history where it belongs.

Yeah, like when people stop being motivated by greed, like when central banks and governments stop debasing their currencies like they have through out history, like when large private banks and service providers stop blocking people from using their platforms, etc. Could happen, I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#377
post #288

The problem with web3 is not that it's centralized -- that's irrelevant. The fundamental problem with all crypto"currencies" is as follows: the world uses real currencies and there is only one way this enters into the world of crypto"currencies": by someone selling a coin to someone else. Thus, regardless of what crypto"currency" we are talking about, it would be a zero sum game if not for transaction fees. However,…

...Or you can use a cryptocurrency like NANO (I'm sure there are others very similar), which is feeless and has nearly no delay to transfer. If there is a scam hiding in there, I've yet to find it. Honestly I've stepped back from the entire crypto space for a while now, the whole space pisses me off, it's all hype and no progress. Or rather, the work that was needed to be done has now been done (feeless, near instant…

> which is feeless and has nearly no delay to transfer

You clearly misunderstood the OP. They’re talking about the fees to convert fiat to XYZ crypto. Where can you buy NANO with fiat & zero overhead?

Re: Web3 is centralized

#378
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are talking about just one function - transfer of value I do not. I am talking of the only way money enters this system. If there would be no money in the system no one would care. At the end of the day, in this time and place, our society decided money is the ultimate goal. I don't like it but it's what it is. > You can have much lower transaction fees than in Visa / Mastercard First of all: it's nonsensical t…

> Second, it's not inherent to the money system to use Visa / Mastercard. You can use other ways to transfer money -- but again, this is irrelevant. To highlight this, Americans are grappling with Zelle (which is just rolled out) and ACH while their neighbors to the north have Interac running relatively seamlessly and Europeans have SEPA and even some countries have local feeless/reasonably priced quick transfer syst…

If you don't charge customers for their debit/credit card payments (which again you sometimes legally cannot do) the point stands even if you have a 0-fee payment option since even if you choose to use that you are still paying for other people's transactions.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#379
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few issues with this: 1. Not all crypto currencies are public. See monero, haven, secret network. Although that last one depends on some specific features of some Intel processors... I'm of the opinion that the pseudonymous nature of public blockchains is very beneficial to society. I would love it if I could see what companies, governments, and people near me were spending their money on. It would enable me to mak…

> "Web3" is about decentralization but it doesn't necessarily mean storing data on a blockchain. The most important aspect is that users no longer have to sign up or log in. They submit responses which are signed by a key pair, which is their identity instead of a record in a "users" table. It is a record in a "users" table. It is just that this table is the publicly readable blockchain.

Exactly. And, if everyone is using the same blockchain for names (to get the universal login experience), then that becomes centralized source for user accounts. Compare that to today where I have distinctly separate accounts on nearly all platforms.

Re: Web3 is centralized

#380
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the problem is centralization, which facilitates censorship and totalitarian control. This is a gross misunderstanding of both the current banking system (which is decentralized) and the degree to which using a slow database doesn’t prevent legal actions. Blockchains are very easy to monitor and censor: ideal for an authoritarian government to get a signed confession for every disapproved transaction you make,…

I think that's a bit disingenuine considering the US government couldn't even put up a healthcare signup website without it crashing. With such a track record, you really think they could just "tap in" or "modify" any given crypto protocol so they could audit every transaction? Give me a break.

I don’t really care about the assertion you’re trying to refute, but that’s the same US government that destroyed Iran’s centrifuges through software. You can’t really look at such a large organization and treat it as uniformly competent/incompetent when it clearly isn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Post reply on HN