Live data from Hacker News

My First Impressions of Web3

moxie.org

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#681

The author mentions that currently all NFTs are just URLs, but it is possible to store data directly in the blockchain, even if it would be prohibitively expensive. An issue with general-purpose immutable storage is that it can be permanently polluted with illegal data. Everything from child pornography, instructions for making drugs or explosives, doxing/attack information, private keys for copy protection systems,…

Without sounding negative, it basically says that sometimes its good to have centralisation because you have: - Moderation - Parties with skin in the game for protection - Support - Someone to reach-out to when things go wrong

And the second argument is that country can still censor (to an extent)

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#682
similar: the conveniently centralised hosting for the 'distributed' matrix im system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28997898

could everyone run their own matrix server in theory? sure. do people want that? not really. so just like in tfa we get a centralised system with all the downsides of a heavily distributed one (reduced reliability, operational and transactional overhead, etc.)

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#683
I come to hacker news for this kind of well written content. As a person who works in a non engineering role (although I started out there) this is brilliantly written and explained. Thank-you.

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and move toward the decentralized end state that apologists are hoping for. Is there any evidence that this is actually happening? It seems rather backwards! Is the maximalist argument here that these companies are going to build out all this infrastructure, move the global financial system onto it, and then rip it apart and rewrite it to be entirely distributed afterwards? Why? If the point is to be distributed, wo…

> Is the maximalist argument here that these companies are going to build out all this infrastructure, move the global financial system onto it, and then rip it apart and rewrite it to be entirely distributed afterwards I haven't heard anyone articulate this as their vision lol. I would think they distribute the systems somewhere between trading monkey JPEGs and actually moving the global financial system onto it. As…

Why would the global financial system move to a blockchain?

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#685
This is a good breakdown.

Too much web3 thinkpiecing (both pro and anti) comes from people who've never looked under the hood. It's refreshing to see someone try actually try crypto as a developer, not just as a user, and go deep enough to figure out how things work in practice.

Moxie's critiques are valid. All of these are well known problems to the researchers at the core of web3 and all are the subject of active R&D.

- Point 1: people fundamentally don't want to run their own servers.

Clearly true. Vitalik gave a vivid example of this in a recent interview on Bankless pod. He visited Argentina, where hyperinflation has forced many people to use crypto or physical USD. He observed people using stablecoins, but not primarily via Eth L1 or any L2. Instead many transacted via Binance. Not BSC--Binance the centralized exchange! Which provides a Paypal-like UX.

Crypto researchers are fully aware. The plan is a couple thousand validators and millions, eventually billions of end users. Of course the end users will not run command-line geth, or run their own server in any capacity.

The plan is for them to use some combination of light clients or trust-minimized hosted services. This requires bringing transaction fees way down, the core goal of L2 rollups + sharing.

Also, today's popular clients are not particularly trust-minimized, which brings us to his second point. Paraphrasing:

- Point 2: current "web3" is really mostly web2. Under the hood, Metamask, OpenSea, etc just use trusted servers.

The fix here is trust-minimized services (= like Infura, but with every response bearing a proof of correctness) or light clients (= very similar, but using full nodes as interchangeable servers).

This exists today as a proof-of-concept. It is about to become feasible in production. The reason current Infura does not provide proofs is because Merkle proofs are 10x+ the size of the data returned for a typical query. Verkle trees fix this.

If you're curious:

- https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/06/18/verkle.html

- https://dankradfeist.de/ethereum/2021/02/14/why-stateless.ht...

Zooming out. Here is the Ethereum roadmap for the next two years, summarized:

- The Merge. This removes proof-of-work. The Eth ecosystem will use >99% less energy after this point.

- The Surge. This is about data sharding. Today a transaction might cost ~$50 on a bad day on Eth L1 and ~$0.50 on a Layer 2 rollup like ZKSync. After the Surge, L2 transactions will be nearly free.

- The Verge. This is about Verkle proofs and statelessness. These allow the core user interfaces -- wallets and light clients -- to efficiently follow the blockchain without trusting central intermediaries. They enable efficient proofs of any portion of the chain or its state.

---

I think these are fundamentally powerful primitives, the implications of which we've just barely begun to explore. I actually welcome the next bear market, since it shakes out the grifters. It is day 1.

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#686

This is a really well-thought-out, nuanced take. I really appreciate mixture of "but there are still servers", not being able to stop a gold rush, and (refreshingly) the technical take on the implementation details. It stands in such stark contrast to other content. For example, a web3 chat app announcement I saw yesterday [1]. I even joined the Discord to learn more and just found...hype. I found this parenthetical…

Do you know of any financial structures or corporate structures that are not pyramid shaped?

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#687
post #75
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are other L1 blockchains already that aren’t like that (eg. Mina) and who knows in future what will come..

Good to know! I don't know much about the blockchain space and have only looked more closely at Ethereum so far.

Yeah that’s fair enough, and it’s changing so fast. I imagine alot of the current problems will be fixed over time… it’ll get there eventually. There are some good educational resources cropping up now e.g. Web3 University and rabbithole.gg

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#688
> Even nerds do not want to run their own servers at this point. Even organizations building software full time do not want to run their own servers at this point. If there’s one thing I hope we’ve learned about the world, it’s that people do not want to run their own servers.

Why is this true? At this point it's never been easier to make your own static website, deploy nginx, and get online. Maybe not everyone wants to make a website, but you would think that everyone that does want to make a website would be able to and deploying a server would not be the bottleneck.

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where it falls apart for me too, people are paying huge sums for artificially scarce links to someone else’s server? I keep feeling like I’m missing something.

No, they are paying huge sums for a digital certificate of ownership of the content on some else’s server; the link is just the description of what they are certified to own, like the address on a deed. (There's all kinds of problems with it, sure, but they aren't paying for the link.)

They don’t own anything in a meaningful sense except the url, and even that is controlled by someone else.

Re: My First Impressions of Web3

#690
post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

decentralization in the blockchain world is really to provide security and interoperability by emulating centralized services. So essentially it looks like a centralized service, but it's more secure than a centralized service.

From a cryptographic perspective, centralized and decentralised services are equally secure. From a user perspective, blockchains are less secure as there is no authority you can approach for chargebacks The point of blockchain was removing trust from a single person and spreading it around over a network

> From a user perspective, blockchains are less secure as there is no authority you can approach for chargebacks

This actually proves the point that security is relative. There are instances when I would feel more secure when an outside party can refund my money, say when the seller never ships the product I ordered. There are also times when I would feel less secure with chargebacks, like when I sell something on eBay and the buyer files a complaint with PayPal after taking delivery of exactly what they ordered.

Security wasn't an original goal of bitcoin. Privacy, anonymity, and immutability were, though the first to were lost a decade ago and immutibly is pretty well solved but also the primary cause for so much wasted resource consumption.

Post reply on HN