171–180 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It's your data, and you decide who has access to it. " Sure, except everybody has access to read the blockchain.
Exactly one of my points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you (really) sure? The article that I linked says otherwise. So for a merchant, there are absolutely no problems in friendly fraud, failing cards in other countries, etc in Web 2 then? Especially sending money to people in sanctioned countries using bank accounts?
My point is that it is not hard to pay with cryptocurrency using "Web 2.0" technology (or at least any problems you run into aren't directly 'Web' related).
Of course one can use cryptocurrencies with Web 2. But try doing the above with the banks, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, etc.
It seems that this is proof that cryptocurrencies not only can work together with Web 2 websites but they are also here to stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto makes it possible to own something digitally. Web3 incorporates this ownership. While Web 2.0 was about writing something to the internet and the World Wide Web was about reading something on the internet. It's a further iteration which just makes sense.
I'd like to be more precise in this case and say that an NFT is an ability to prove original ownership. We have of course been able to buy and own more or less exlusive licenses to digital goods for a long time now. The video game market is now larger than the music and film industries combined and quickly becoming entirely digital. And if it's own work and the more literal form of ownership rather than just a licens…
It doesn't even do that. See: all artists whose work was stolen and sold as NFTs
There's a lot of valid criticism to be made on web3, but this isn't it. It completely misses the mark and shows a poor understanding of what it is and how it could work. The most glaring error is the assumption that non-essential user actions/content would be stored on an L1 blockchain. L1 is expensive, a settlement layer for things requiring maximum security. It's absurd to store tweets or likes to tweets on it. Twe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re running Postgres you have this problem and you gave it a centralized solution.
I can run Postgres with no cryptobro crap required. Huge advantage. If people don't want to trust my instance, then we can start signing blobs so my instance only shovels dumb data around that anybody can verify being authentic. If relationships are required to be verifiable, we can build a PKI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worked != solved.
Worked doesn't imply that they didn't solve it. You can still be CURIOUS and look up the patents :) Just because something is new for you (and lets be clear 14 years and counting isn't new) doesn't mean it's new for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vehement shilling against anything blockchain related is something I still don't really get. Sure, I get it, you don't like blockchain. But this website would've taken a bit of effort to put together, and for what? To shit on something the author doesn't like? What's the author trying to get out of making something like this?
People hate blockchains because they're tired of the spam from cryptobros who have done nothing to create anything actually useful. Bitcoin is destroying the environment while providing no real decentralization since most people don't run their own clients. Other shitcoins are either outright scams or vulnerable to client forks like when Vitaly stole 150 million dollars. After not actually solving currency, cryptobro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. A "free" internet. Not in terms of money, but in terms of freedom of speech without censorship and a controlling authority. With no authority that decides whether I can send money to/receive from someone. Especially living in a corrupt authoratarian system, even only those two outweight all the bad sides (tx fees, scalability, PoW environmental effects) for me. It does more good than it harms in the big picture…
> With no authority that decides whether I can send money to/receive from someone. That’s actually a good point and Bitcoin/crypto solves this. Why doesn’t it stop there though, what does web3 solve?
You can imagine outlawing processing some crypto transactions in some area. Miners have no choice but to comply, leading to at least a fork and massive confusion, at most to actual enforcement of the rule.
Blockchains may be censorship-resistant, but humans are not rubber hose resistant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can anyone give a reasoned argument to the actual benefits of Web 3, in contrast to what is currently not possible without the use of a Blockchain? Yeah. Why not try donating to NGOs through a bank account if your friend or penpal happens to be stuck in a sanctioned country? [0] I also don't think merchants and businesses would like to tolerate the knowingly abused chargeback system which friendly fraud hurts both…
So purely paying with cryptocurrency is now somehow "web"?
So that is not even utility then?
This link is inflammatory and does nothing to spark curiosity or useful discussion. It's essentially the opposite of what HN is for.
It is the same repeated boring non-arguments that critics make to feel smart.