Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

billprin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 319 posts

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#51

Post by spinny »

thesandlord wrote: post #5

My big question with using a Web3 login is what advantages it gives the website owner. With social Web 2.0 login, I can be fairly sure the person logging in has a valid email address, a name, etc, and it is a single click for the user vs filling in all the info all over again. With a Web3 login, it is basically the same. Except I'm not really given any personal info like name or email, so I need ask them for that any…

People already use ENS do register a .eth name to the respective ethereum address. It's also easy to write a smart contract that keeps meta-info on an address. This data would be public.

> Why does currency and money need to get involved?

It doesn't. You only need a blockchain to keep public data. You can sign a message and login with that, no need to send a transaction, can be done with balance 0

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#53

Post by ranger207 »

As other comments have pointed out, there are other technical solutions to decentralized identity. The blockchain doesn't solve this problem any better than private keys or Persona or whatever. The article acknowledges this. The problem with existing solutions is not the technical problem, it's the social problem: making the new solution easy to use, fixing bugs and covering edge cases, and getting it deployed widely. The author claims that the social problem is what Web3 solves; that Web3 is the social solution counterpart to the blockchain technical solution.

Web3 is indeed a social solution to this social problem, but the real problem with Web3 is that it's a terrible social solution. Web3 (aka blockchain enthusiasts, aka cryptobros) is a community comprised of on one end by true believers who believe they're smarter than anyone else in the room and that anyone who brings up complaints are only mad because they didn't get in when the cryptocoin was cheap, and on the other end by grifters and scammers who fully acknowledge that they're only in it for a quick buck off the back of unsuspecting rubes.

This is the core problem with most crypto projects. Most blockchain projects have technical problems [0], but even for the few things that blockchain uniquely solves [1] the general scummyness of everyone involved means that anyone advertising they're solving problems with a blockchain is not someone to trust your money with [2].

Of course, the blockchain isn't the only technology to suffer this problem. Blockchain's at the top of the hype cycle right now so of course it's filled with scammers. But even though Pets.com may not have the most competent business, the technology behind ecommerce was generally sound. Blockchain on the other hand has so few useful niches that the only thing left are the hype-men.

[0] Eg you could use NFTs to prove ownership of IRL property, but why? You're just storing a deed in a different place. It used to be in a SQL server somewhere, now it's on a blockchain instead.

[1] That is, decentralized databases where you don't trust all parties not to modify the data. But uh, with whom do you need to share data that you don't trust, and how do you guarantee they're not just feeding false data into it in the first place?

[2] I'm not implying all blockchain enthusiasts are pretentious and/or scammers. Just that there's a much higher proportion of them in the Web3 community than elsewhere.

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#54

Post by rbanffy »

I was fully expecting to see an empty HTML page.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only new idea here is to use a ledger to hold public keys associated with an identity. You could add keys by signing a new key with one of the previously globally accepted ones proving you are that entity and the same would go for removing a lost one, by signing a new message with all the remaining keys.

Having a key copied without your knowledge would be a major disaster, however.

Apart from that, this is not very different from using keys in SSH and providing a challenge/response login form would be very simple.

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#55

Post by spinny »

vanusa wrote: post #49

Great - now I'm forced to be on some blockchain somewhere to get anything done. This is progress?

You are missing the point. The article is about login methods. Username/password vs message signed with a private key. The blockchain part is there because is the only ready-to-use way to do it in an browser.

It's absurd how HN users in general are so dismissive of anything cryptocurrency

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#58

Post by erosenbe0 »

He isn't describing the true state of the world. Banks, brokerages, mortgage providers, and medical entities mostly don't use oauth2 and won't use this stuff either.

The world is still old school.

Grandpa dies and I go find the paper will.

I get an affidavit from a lawyer and a death certificate with a seal from the state.

I go into the bank with a bunch of papers and they figure out what to do.

There isn't a chain of trust that the state uploads a PK signed death certificate to, which in conjunction with a PK signed 'will and trust' then triggers a preexisting blockchain contract to effect the asset transfer.

This is 20 or 30 years off. Maybe 10 or 15 in China.

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#59

Post by vanusa »

spinny wrote: post #55
vanusa wrote: post #49

Great - now I'm forced to be on some blockchain somewhere to get anything done. This is progress?

You are missing the point. The article is about login methods. Username/password vs message signed with a private key. The blockchain part is there because is the only ready-to-use way to do it in an browser. It's absurd how HN users in general are so dismissive of anything cryptocurrency

My point was usability. And being (effectively) forced to join / legitimize their hive to get anything done.

It's absurd how HN users in general are so dismissive of anything cryptocurrency.

It's quite reasonable actually, given the prevalence of not just hype, but frequently delusional / just plain rambling and incoherent hype surrounding it -- not to mention blatant fraud and manipulation aimed specifically at unsophisticated users.

And the skivviness of many people involved in it.

That said, the OP presents one of the more thoughtful proposals I've read recently, and may belong to the 5 percent or so of blockchain applications that just might have a useful application. With emphasis on "just might".

We'll see.

Re: Real Problems That Web3 Solves, Part 1

#60

Post by JesseObrien »

This article doesn't add up the points to anything that solves for the given problem. Owning identity isn't solved by saying "don't trust ${third party}! Come trust ${my preferred third party}, it's better!" Any blockchain is still a third party that all parties involved with need to place trust in. It isn't somehow more or less trustworthy just because it exists.

> Many people, including myself, believe that the individual should be able to own their own identity.

Yes, this is nice wishful thinking, but on a global scale it's not really possible or feasible.

> OAuth2 should be used for what it was intended to, which is for a web service to provide another web service with a user’s data given that user’s consent. It should not be used as a global digital identifier because that’s too important to be owned by anyone but the individual themselves.

So, instead of OAuth being in the hands of FAANG[1] it's in the hands of ${blockchain-of-the-year}? How does moving the trust from a centralized company to a centralized blockchain change MY ownership? If I move everything away from FAANG to someone's blockchain, I have no assurance that chain will continue existing. If there's a flaw found in it and everyone moves to another chain, now what? Sure, we can make the same claim about FAANG not continuing to exist, but the point is there's no inherent advantage here, they're equal. FAANG are supported by millions of individuals and companies that are all, together invested in their success. There's no unilateral agreement on blockchains and I doubt there ever will be.

>With social recovery, instead of having to trust Google, you can choose who you trust, and instead trust a given set of friends, family, and services.

Again with the trust this and not that. All of my friends, family and other services need to then agree that they're all going to trust ${chain} instead of FAANG. It doesn't fix the problem. "the blockchain" isn't just one thing. Who's chain do we all shift trust to and from and based on what security? At least with Google I can rely on their security because if they end up with a breach of trust it's going to have a massive, real impact on share prices and consumer trust around the globe. That's incentive enough for me to rely on it day-to-day.

This article has some interesting tidbits but overall seems like just a baseless rally against FAANG by someone who knows very little about complex authentication or trust and security in the real world.

[1]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp

Post reply on HN