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

Web3 is centralized and inefficient

neelc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#131

Post by auggierose »

cardy31 wrote: post #91
valcron1000 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about international transfers without a middle man dictating what, when and how? If not for blockchain I would probably be working on a completely different field. Just because you don't find it useful does not mean that it's the same for everyone else

Turns out most people wanting to do international transfers without a middleman are criminals. Regular people are for the most part fine with international transfers going through banks, likely via SWIFT.

Except if you live in Russia, of course. Or are you saying every Russian is a criminal?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#133

Post by philliphaydon »

everfree wrote: post #121
philliphaydon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain does not help supply chains. It doesn’t guarantee that things have been tampered with. It doesn’t solve any problems.

An immutable database guarantees that the "paper trail" has not been tampered with. In supply chains, there's a lot to be said for having a paper trail even if (or especially if) some of the papers are fraudulently written.

How does block chain guarentee that something going from A to C via B is not tampered with in anyway?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#134

Post by everfree »

cardy31 wrote: post #91
valcron1000 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about international transfers without a middle man dictating what, when and how? If not for blockchain I would probably be working on a completely different field. Just because you don't find it useful does not mean that it's the same for everyone else

Turns out most people wanting to do international transfers without a middleman are criminals. Regular people are for the most part fine with international transfers going through banks, likely via SWIFT.

I don't know if you've actually tried to send an international wire transfer, but it requires more paperwork/effort, is more expensive, and is less reliable than signing a crypto transaction.

Many smaller banks require you to physically drive to the branch and wait in line to send one. They usually cost upwards of $40 and that's before currency conversion, which is done at a rate that may or may not be favorable.

Making a blockchain payment has pros and cons, but it has enough pros that the "only useful for criminals" argument is tired.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#135

Post by yashg »

strangeattractr wrote: post #94
fryingneurons wrote: post #25

Quoted post unavailable.

Your retort is the most common one to criticism of web3 and crypto. The only reason people criticise it is because they don't own it. Surely then you'll admit the only reason people are proponents of it is because they do own it?

Ad hominem attack. Takes way less time and energy. Unlike blockchain. :)

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#136

Post by hestefisk »

xiphias2 wrote: post #100
TheCowboy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we limit ourselves to Bitcoin then we're at a sliver of the web3 ecosystem everyone is casting their hopes upon. And Bitcoin in its current state still seems more like a blockchain working prototype and isn't 'feature-ful' enough to replace centralized finance. But proof-of-work's energy consumption is what kills Bitcoin for me. For what it's worth, I consider myself crypto agnostic. If a tech delivers something b…

Bitcoin has nothing to do with Web3, they are two different things (web3 is a new term, Bitcoin is a system from 2008)

Bitcoin has a scripting system which gives it some limited smart contract capabilities. If web 3 is about programmable money and ownership I would argue BTC is very much relevant to Web 3.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#137

Post by bluehorseray »

neelc wrote: post #103
alexb_ wrote: post #97

People use centralized systems because they actually like the convenience that comes with it. And with that, comes the decentralized system changing in such a way that it changes to almost NEEDING centralization. The problem is that engineers and cybersecurity people all think that everyone else thinks like they do, when in actuality the complete opposite is true. The biggest example is the internet itself - the inte…

This. The sad thing is that people like the convenience of centralized systems. Humans are lazy. They'll go with the #1 option, even if it means building a centralized monopoly. I should've made this point clearer. Note: I am the article's author.

I don't think it's necessarily sad at all. It seems like centralized systems make the most sense in, well, most systems. And safeguards can be put in place to prevent the centralization from being abused.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#138

Post by everfree »

philliphaydon wrote: post #133
everfree wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An immutable database guarantees that the "paper trail" has not been tampered with. In supply chains, there's a lot to be said for having a paper trail even if (or especially if) some of the papers are fraudulently written.

How does block chain guarentee that something going from A to C via B is not tampered with in anyway?

It doesn't guarantee that. As I said, it guarantees that paper trails are permanent and cannot be fudged after the fact.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#139

Post by vmception »

xiphias2 wrote: post #56
TheCowboy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Run your own node. This is lazy reporting It isn't practical for the majority of people to run their own node. Even Vitalik Buterin acknowledges[1] this isn't realistic for the current state of things. Last year I was interested in running a sidechain node and I was shocked when I looked at minimum system requirements. I can't just run it in the background and I have a 5600X Ryzen. Plus my NVMe drive needed to be m…

Regarding Ethereum you’re right, it’s centralized. With Bitcoin I run my node and check the incoming transactions with it whenever I make a big money transfer (for outgoing transactions a full node is not really needed, as I don’t care if the network doesn’t accept it as long as my counterparty does). Running a Bitcoin node is practical (less than a day of running in the background on the first run) if the amount of…

Ethereum is only centralized if you dont run your own node. It is as practical to do that as it is a bitcoin node (but not for what the person you replied to was trying to do). This is an absurd distinction, and even if it wasnt absurd or wasnt practical then it is a fixable issue. Because it already has been fixed. Geth has a pruned fast sync client that has everything necessary for consensus, it takes about the amount of space and resources as a bitcoin one.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#140

Post by polyomino »

cmelbye wrote: post #128
alexb_ wrote: post #97

People use centralized systems because they actually like the convenience that comes with it. And with that, comes the decentralized system changing in such a way that it changes to almost NEEDING centralization. The problem is that engineers and cybersecurity people all think that everyone else thinks like they do, when in actuality the complete opposite is true. The biggest example is the internet itself - the inte…

The problems you’re describing are problems of the internet, not decentralization. Few could’ve predicted what the initial rules of the internet would generate after a few decades. We can learn from the outcome and come up with new rules. The point about how “people want centralized systems” reminds me of the initial response to Apple’s privacy strategy. At the time, it was met with skepticism, to say the least. Priv…

Yeah, and Apple sold people on "privacy" and now operate a surveillance network against Chinese citizens. They are the archetypical example of this playing out. Promising decentralization and instead you get metamask overriding the blockchain because some jpegs are illegal.
Post reply on HN