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

Welcome to Web 3.0

welcome2web3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 309 posts

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#181

Post by sergiosgc »

JamesMcMinn wrote: post #95

So far I've yet to see a convincing argument for what "Web 3" is and can offer that we can't currently do without the use of a Blockchain. It all seems to boil down to "it'll cost something to do something", which isn't exactly a convincing argument on its own. The responses to this story read rather like Facebook comments on controversial news articles - there's a bunch of comments claiming the website is a bunch of…

The idea of a public ledger, where any public record can be kept without the need of a central authority certainly has value. The fact that current tech solutions are not efficient, and thus expensive, should not hide that value.

Instead of going through offshoots trying to find the killer app, I'd much prefer to see cryptocurrency tech evolve in order to bring costs down. Take the base use case of keeping "bank account" records and run with it until it works (as of now, it does not). Out of the viable -- for my definition of viable -- cryptocurrencies out there, the only one I see moving in the right direction is Ethereum. They are taking their sweet time, though.

If a killer use case is needed, think micropayments: The ability to pay 0.1¢ to listen to a song, paying directly to the artist.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#182

Post by malermeister »

can16358p wrote: post #100
JamesMcMinn wrote: post #95

So far I've yet to see a convincing argument for what "Web 3" is and can offer that we can't currently do without the use of a Blockchain. It all seems to boil down to "it'll cost something to do something", which isn't exactly a convincing argument on its own. The responses to this story read rather like Facebook comments on controversial news articles - there's a bunch of comments claiming the website is a bunch of…

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…

But with money being so unequally distributed, this will just result in an even more unfree internet.

If participating in anything on this new internet requires money, the Bezoses and Musks will be able to do whatever they want while the normies will beg for scraps in this vision of the web.

Instead of fixing a corrupt authoritarian system, we'll just end up implementing digital neofeudalism.

This is already starting to happen with NFT games, where westerners keep Filipinos as indentured servants. [0] It'll only get worse from here if we don't stop it.

[0] https://reason.com/2022/02/01/the-biggest-nft-video-games-ec...

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#183

Post by PretzelPirate »

goosedragons wrote: post #113
MaxKK wrote: post #98

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.

You could own something digitally before crypto. I've got some pretty sweet digital 7th Edition Magic cards I've had for about 2 decades. I traded away some of them and sold others.

If those are on Magic the Gathering Online, do you really own them? What happens when that shuts down in favor of Magic Arena?

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#184

Post by PretzelPirate »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #29
onion2k wrote: post #16

This parody is quite funny, but it's actually a take on the micro-transaction model more than web3. Web3 sites could work exactly the same as web2 sites except for the bits people want to own themselves. I don't imagine many people care about owning a Like or a comment. What's perhaps even more fun to think about is that somewhere in a lofty corner office at Instagram there's someone with a math or compsci PhD doing…

The cost to post (just an upload) is going to be a lot smaller in the long run than the cost for people to view popular content (tons and tons of bandwidth, some db access, etc.). So it's kind of a weird model to charge for posting or contributing. Really you'd want to charge for time spent viewing... and then you've basically invented AOL again.

I’m surprised they charge to post at all since the most likely approach to build this in real life would be to use a validium (stores data Offchain) and the cost to the network operators would be fixed and very cheap.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#185

Post by throwmeariver1 »

abiro wrote: post #176
throwmeariver1 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Curious” was my courteous way of saying that your and the first commenter’s claims are BS.

Well, snarky comments like that are forbidden on HN better stay with the I am to gulible to search argument. The patent was filled in 1998 but I am not helping your CURIOUS mind any further. ;0)

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#186

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

IanCal wrote: post #159
JamesMcMinn wrote: post #95

So far I've yet to see a convincing argument for what "Web 3" is and can offer that we can't currently do without the use of a Blockchain. It all seems to boil down to "it'll cost something to do something", which isn't exactly a convincing argument on its own. The responses to this story read rather like Facebook comments on controversial news articles - there's a bunch of comments claiming the website is a bunch of…

> can offer that we can't currently do without the use of a Blockchain. The real issue with responses like this is that you can do anything with computers anyway. The blockchain basically gives you a * Globally writable database * With stored procedures * And row level security Now, you can always swap out that with a centralised service. Turing machines can do stuff and machines can talk to each other. Whether it's…

> So to make, say, an in game item that people can re-sell, swap, etc

There is a fairly specific kind of game where anything like this would even be useful and arguably it is impossible for the practice to not be predatory anyway. It is difficult to imagine an entity that would do this without also wanting the kind of complete control that a blockchain supposedly exists to avoid.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#187

Post by UncleMeat »

sergiosgc wrote: post #181
JamesMcMinn wrote: post #95

So far I've yet to see a convincing argument for what "Web 3" is and can offer that we can't currently do without the use of a Blockchain. It all seems to boil down to "it'll cost something to do something", which isn't exactly a convincing argument on its own. The responses to this story read rather like Facebook comments on controversial news articles - there's a bunch of comments claiming the website is a bunch of…

The idea of a public ledger, where any public record can be kept without the need of a central authority certainly has value. The fact that current tech solutions are not efficient, and thus expensive, should not hide that value. Instead of going through offshoots trying to find the killer app, I'd much prefer to see cryptocurrency tech evolve in order to bring costs down. Take the base use case of keeping "bank acco…

Micropayments have been available in various forms well before BTC was a thing and they never took off. Micropayments also necessitate L2 solutions more than almost any other feature using blockchains since fees are nontrivial at that level even on rarely used chains.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#188

Post by jiggawatts »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #183
goosedragons wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could own something digitally before crypto. I've got some pretty sweet digital 7th Edition Magic cards I've had for about 2 decades. I traded away some of them and sold others.

If those are on Magic the Gathering Online, do you really own them? What happens when that shuts down in favor of Magic Arena?

The same thing that happens if you have an NFT that's just a URL. If the URL target goes down, the NFT is broken.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#189

Post by 3np »

detaro wrote: post #132
kgraves wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) considered web3? can't you use IFPS without cryptocurrencies? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System

There's been kind of two waves of "This is web3". The first was primarily about protocols like IPFS, dat/hyper, ... (2018/19?) and then at some point it got used more and more by blockchain folks, and they kind of dominate the conversation now. What it "actually" is is up in the air and not really defined. (But the blockchain scenario still often involves things like IPFS as underlying components)

b̵l̵o̵c̵k̵c̵h̵a̵i̵n̵ ̵f̵o̵l̵k̵s̵ NFT-hype snake-oil kids who seem to believe that cloud platforms === exposing something online. Most blockchain folks I know also despise it.

And, I'd even say it's three waves, the first being TBL semantic web, which predates bitcoin.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#190

Post by UncleMeat »

IanCal wrote: post #163
audunw wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With NFT, blockchain proponents have argued that ticket trading is a really good usecase, and could maybe lessen the grip of the likes of Ticketmaster I think the last episode of Last Week Tonight really shed light on why Blockchain can't really solve real-world problems like that. The problem isn't a technical problem. It'd be easy to solve the problem of ticked distribution/resale without blockchain if the concert…

> And you really can't solve the problem of scalping without tying tickets/accounts to a verified national ID, which is a political problem. I'm not sure I understand that. You could tie it to something within a smaller group (e.g. tickets can only be transferred to people who have bought the bands album, or only to verified accounts that the vendor approves). I would also be surprised if there wasn't a ZK way of doi…

This feels like a worse thing to me. “You can sell this thing to people, but only people who have done some other sort of on chain transaction” opens the door for a huge mess.

“You can sell to people who aren’t a member of a union.”

“You can sell to people who never donated money to the ACLU.”

“You can sell to people who don’t own a gun.”

Is that the direction we really want?

Post reply on HN