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

231–240 of 309 posts

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#231

Post by IanCal »

falcolas wrote: post #224
IanCal wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? The larger point was that that's the same either way so it comes out in the wash. But OK if you want to break it down more: * Have the user prove they own a specific account ( https://walletconnect.com/ I would guess would be a simple approach to this) * Make a REST API call to check if they own the item (edit - to clarify, the API already exists, you just need to do a single get request) * Set local flag in g…

> What more detail would you need? Implementing the weapon. Paying for that implementation. Concrete example: I buy an NFT for a sword in World of Warcraft. I want to take it with me to FFXIV. Now FFXIV has to implement the sword. Its looks, its behaviors, its power, in a completely separate engine and world. They - Square Enix - also probably have to pay Blizzard for the trademark and copyrights to the sword. Yet wh…

> Implementing the weapon.

Implementing an in game item? That's already part of your game, right?

> Paying for that implementation.

You can buy an NFT entirely on chain, that's surely not in doubt.

> Plus, implementing a "yes, person with email address N owns sword X" rest API is pretty straightforward. You could even implement public/private key signatures for authentication of the receipt. It just would be stored in someone's email inbox instead of the chain.

Yes, I totally could re-implement all of these things. I could handle payment info, get people to manage their own public/private keys using my own implementations and have them copy & paste it from an email (?). I'm not sure I follow the flow there where people copy keys from emails into my game and how duplication is stopped but it sounds like an awful flow.

My point, as I tried to emphasise, is that I can get those things without building them. They already exist if I manage that part with an NFT.

So the question has increasingly become (as the field matures) - why build it myself? Why not use existing, working infrastructure?

> Concrete example: I buy an NFT for a sword in World of Warcraft. I want to take it with me to FFXIV. Now FFXIV has to implement the sword. Its looks, its behaviors, its power, in a completely separate engine and world.

I've not said anything about sharing between games, and the complex part of that is identical whether it's with crypto or not. What the global shared database part solves is that either game can easily check, if this was something they wanted to do.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#232

Post by IanCal »

falcolas wrote: post #225
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not to mention that trading/selling items is something that - within individual games - has been done for decades now. Diablo II anyone?

Yes, you can build all these things yourself. That's not the question (and it's what I was expanding on in the comment). The question is should you, given that there is an existing layer you can build on top of that already handles that?

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#233

Post by falcolas »

abiro wrote: post #56
anhner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, we already have decades of research into general purpose decentralized databases that aren't tied to shitcoins.

I'd be curious to hear about any solutions to enforcing invariants on state transitions in a decentralized manner pre 2008.

Markov chains (cryptographic signatures on a linked list of transactions) have been around for much longer than 14 years. There's your "decentralized invariants on state transitions".

The "magic" provided by bitcoins was the "proof of work" part - basically trying to create only one "real" trusted branch of the markov chain at any point in time. But that "reality" has been broken multiple times by both the miners and the programers with voluntary and involuntary splits, double spends, etc.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#234

Post by miracle2k »

rich_sasha wrote: post #178
samsonradu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Only somewhat I think; miners actually do have such control, and could be coerced into sanctions; it's just that no one has successfully done that (or kept quiet about it). 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,…

> 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.

It is not a geo-location issue. The enforcement measures in question either manage to control 50% of the hashrate or they don't. If they don't, the protocol will ignore their censorship. Yes, they could continue mining a minority fork chain, but you would need to convince Bitcoin-users and services to use the fork instead of the uncensored version. You could imagine this being done by force: ISPs block the download of the software, exchanges no longer trade it etc.

The point is merely: <50%, the power is not with the miners at all; it is the users that need to be controlled.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#235

Post by kderbyma »

Crypto was not supposed to be about paying people...it's about owning content ... people who want to monetize the process will always see flaws in something which is beyond the scope of just finance.

crypto was ruined speculators and will find no saviors from them. but trusting all crypto as speculation is just as speculative

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#236

Post by miracle2k »

piva00 wrote: post #199
PretzelPirate wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the game that is using the NFTs I bought is shutdown, what the hell is the value of these in-game items that I bought if the game for them doesn't exist anymore? Yeah, someone else can create a new game and say "we accept the NFT items from Defunct Game X", you are still completely under the control of whomever is providing you the platform for these in-game items to actually exist. If that platform is taken away…

> If that platform is taken away you just have some bits of data pointing to other bits of data with no meaning and no value at all..

They can still have meaning (we know what item it was); whether there are people who would value the pure notion of owning such a digital item in the absence of concrete functionality is indeed the question that NFTs explore/raise.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#237

Post by miracle2k »

jiggawatts wrote: post #188
PretzelPirate wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only in a superficial way. A lot of the early NFTs pre the 721 standard did not bother with an URL; the Cryptopunks don't. The catalogue of what exactly each token represents can work perfectly well off-chain. If people care to trade Bored Ape tokens, they will do so even if the URLs are broken; whatever marketplace they are using will manually make sure the right images are shown etc.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#239

Post by geocrasher »

Can somebody comment on where Hedera Hashgraph fits into all of this? It's supposedly way different than block chain. I have a friend who's invested heavily in it and is trying to convince me to the do the same, but I am skeptical of all things monopoly money related. At least I can hold a USD in my hand if I choose, despite the fact that it's mostly made up too.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#240

Post by acdha »

miracle2k wrote: post #230
acdha wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. More accurately, it could if it actually worked but since it doesn't all you're doing is paying more for lower quality of service. A key concept to understand is that when blockchain sales people say “no aut…

> More accurately, it could if it actually worked but since it doesn't all you're doing is paying more for lower quality of service. A key concept to understand is that when blockchain sales people say “no authority” they mean “except the miners, software developers, exchange and oracle operators, and the governments which have jurisdiction over them”. Critics like to say "it doesn't work", then the next day complain…

It worked as long as nobody was trying to go after it. That's been changing and as we've seen the parties involved have plenty of real-world presence which various authorities have been able to take advantage of. This is why the absolute claims about “free speech” are simply reflecting a deeper misunderstanding: it's true that nobody can stop you from making a Bitcoin transaction unless they block the protocol entirely but the retroactive consequences deter people quite effectively, very similarly to how to even very authoritarian states can't prevent you from saying something in public but can very effectively make it too risky for most people to do.

> Free speech laws work even if Facebook deletes your post, or you a fired, or sometimes someone doesn't appeal their conviction. Your argument about "miners, developers or exchange operators" existing is not any more valid than this one is.

Free speech laws generally don't apply to private companies like Facebook, who are generally given a high level discretion for how they choose to run their communities. The same is true of a blockchain network: the implementers and operators set the policies and since these systems are based on money that generally means that you're getting the rules which the major players either want or are required to implement by the governments with jurisdiction over them. That last part is key to understand: maybe a protocol allows you to make a transaction somewhere but the cost/risk shifts considerably if the recipient knows that they won't be able to use it in most places and every potential buyer can easily tell that it's on a list of tainted tokens.

Post reply on HN