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

301–310 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#301

Post by meribold »

mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to something I created for $x and then you give me $x and we both sign the piece of paper. A court would consider that piece of paper valid which makes the contract real. Replace the piece of paper with a text file with cryptographic signatures and a court may consider that valid as well.

Isn't an NFT basically such a text file embedded into a decentralized marketplace? It's real if you can find a court that says it's real.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#302

Post by dmitriid »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #284
dmitriid wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's interesting because I can hoard tickets and resell at profit". Why is that interesting, exactly? Edit All that is marked as "interesting" in crypto is inevitably "how can I profit/get rich quick off something".

In a proper market, it is impossible to resell because the sales price is the production price. So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match. At which point there is no point in being a scalper anymore. Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed.

Ah yes. The magical "click my fingers and there's a new Woodstock every time someone raises a price" free-market.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#303

Post by yashg »

threatripper wrote: post #226
mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

Legally owning a house is literally just having your name and the address of your house in a book. EDIT: The actual power does not reside in the book. It resides in the mindshare this specific book has. Anyone can put anything in a book but only some people control the book that people pay attention to. Similar it is with fiat, cryptos and nfts. The power is not in the technology itself but in the mindshare they occu…

It's not the book/register or the mindshare. It's a central authority (sovereign government) and it's legal system that grants and enforces the ownership rights. Remove that authority and what do you have? Anarchy. There's a reason why central authority based systems have evolved. It reduces violence.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#304

Post by deepspace »

JaggerFoo wrote: post #286

The massive pace of blockchain technology, applications of math, innovation, and open experimentation is great to see. Don't try to stifle innovation because users are finding ways to interact that are simple, or you think its not decentralized enough. There is great work being done beneath the surface applications you are complaining about - by respected researchers. Cheers

> massive pace of blockchain technology

What massive pace of what technology? It's a ledger (1600s technology) protected by a digital signature (30 year old technology). What exactly is the 'innovation' work being done by 'respected researchers'?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#305

Post by happymellon »

divs1210 wrote: post #254
smt88 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digital licenses and tickets are useless if the central authority doesn't honor them. There's absolutely no benefit to making NFTs out of them. For example, if I buy an NFT ticket to a concert and the venue doesn't let me in, what was the point of the decentralization?

That's not why making an NFT out of the ticket is interesting. It's interesting because I can, for example, resell my Woodstock ticket on an open market.

You can resell your paper, or email ticket already.

How does blockchain make it interesting?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#306

Post by vmception »

unmole wrote: post #280
vmception wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A digital picture frame is a physical device that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing them, you purchased the device though. A digital digital picture frame is a set of classes that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing the image, you purchased the set of classes, typically following one of the NFT standard…

But an NFT doesn't let me look at a picture. It doesn't have a display for one. The whole point of a digital picture frame is that it has a display. Is a browser a digital digital picture frame? I have as much need for a specialised digital digital picture frame as I have for a digital paperweight.

well, this was fun, past tense. analogies compare the ways dissimilar things are similar, not the ways they aren't.

this is a thread about selling them and not asking why people are willing to pay for them. so what you or I need isn't relevant, if you don't want to buy one then don't buy one. if you want to make money, sell one. unless there was some point you were trying to make, in which case there are plenty of sister threads to make that point in.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#307

Post by mellavora »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #284
dmitriid wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's interesting because I can hoard tickets and resell at profit". Why is that interesting, exactly? Edit All that is marked as "interesting" in crypto is inevitably "how can I profit/get rich quick off something".

In a proper market, it is impossible to resell because the sales price is the production price. So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match. At which point there is no point in being a scalper anymore. Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed.

I didn't realize it was that easy to produce another Woodstock, or that the only purpose of music and festivals was profit maximization/economic equilibrium.

Silly me.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#308

Post by kgwgk »

meribold wrote: post #301
mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to something I created for $x and then you give me $x and we both sign the piece of paper. A court would consider that piece of paper valid which makes the contract real. Replace the piece of paper with a text file with cryptographic signatures and a court may consider that valid as well. Isn't an NFT basically such a text file embedded into a decent…

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to the piece of paper and sell it to you for $x.

The piece of paper is real, but it doesn’t matter if there is the address of a house written on it or whatever - the only think you own is the piece of paper.

That seems a better description of most NFTs which have no contract meaning at all.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#309

Post by hiq »

majormajor wrote: post #160
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy. Most people don't want to run their own mail servers. That isn't the same thing as saying we need a single entity to be in charge of email. There are thousands of independent email providers. Your emails get marked as spam if you have two users, not if you have two thousand. And small providers getting marked as spam isn't because it's necessary to prevent spam, it's because large providers…

Email is one I keep coming back to when I try to picture a future that runs on blockchain tech. It seems like even if there are enough situations where the zero-trust nature proves to make sense to users, it would be silly for them to all use the same chains. Why deal with the overhead and transaction costs? Why wouldn't there be as many chains as their are email providers, and then most of them would only have value…

> Why wouldn't there be as many chains as their are email providers

Email providers can send email to each other, making them all as equally useful. Different blockchains wouldn't be compatible with each other by default, by definition, so it's more of a winner-takes-all situation.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#310

Post by unmole »

vmception wrote: post #306
unmole wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But an NFT doesn't let me look at a picture. It doesn't have a display for one. The whole point of a digital picture frame is that it has a display. Is a browser a digital digital picture frame? I have as much need for a specialised digital digital picture frame as I have for a digital paperweight.

well, this was fun, past tense. analogies compare the ways dissimilar things are similar, not the ways they aren't. this is a thread about selling them and not asking why people are willing to pay for them. so what you or I need isn't relevant, if you don't want to buy one then don't buy one. if you want to make money, sell one. unless there was some point you were trying to make, in which case there are plenty of si…

You came up with an analogy that doesn't make sense.
Post reply on HN