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

331–340 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#331

Post by Tenoke »

yashg wrote: post #303
threatripper wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similarly, the value of the NFT is not in the token but in the community (artist, other NFT holders) honoring it and sometimes enforcing certain rights.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#332

Post by prox »

cmckn wrote: post #285
shawabawa3 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the whole point of NFT tickets is to _stop_ you reselling on an open market (aka StubHub/Ticketmaster) and instead force you to either resell back to the venue, or to resell at face value only

Yikes. Not to mention there’s a public record of every ticket you’ve ever purchased. In many ways a blockchain is adtech done worst.

I honestly tried to come up with ideas for crypto / blockchain but every time someone pointed out how my solution could be done easier / better without blockchain. Blockchain is a problem looking for a solution to make more money.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#333

Post by chii »

unmole wrote: post #326
chii wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frame isn't _for_ you, it's for everybody else, and that frame shows (with proof) that _you_ own the picture. That's why the mona lisa framed in the museum is worth more than a replica picture. It's not even the frame, it's the fact that there's a public broadcast of a form of ownership.

So, it's not like a digital photo frame? > That's why the mona lisa framed in the museum is worth more than a replica picture. The Mona Lisa in the Louvre is worth more than a replica because the Louvre owns it? That's an original take, I'll give you that. Is that is the case, why does the Louvre own the original and not a replica?

> why does the Louvre own the original and not a replica?

so if somebody claimed that they owned the original mona lisa, and that the louvre actually has a replica, would you consider that replica to be more valuable?

Who's to say what is the replica then? Suppose the replica was perfect?

It sounds weird, but the fact that the Louvre is displaying the mona lisa is what makes it valuable. The fact that most people is unable to know (nor care tbh) whether what they see in that glass box is actually the original or a really good replica.

So what makes NFT any different in this sense? It's not a technological thing, but a social thing.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#334

Post by bruce343434 »

exdsq wrote: post #212
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

To be specific, an NFT can be anything - even a Turing complete program - but common ones are simply containing a string of a URL. Edit: I was loosely involved in some of the conversation around smart contract and token implementation on a top 10 chain and there’s actually a lot of interesting issues with on chain data, such as if child pornography is added suddenly in some countries hosting a node can be seen as dis…

Sounds like an immutable global record isn’t such a panacea after all…

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#335

Post by FeepingCreature »

happymellon wrote: post #311
FeepingCreature wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed. No offense, but you do not understand art. Yes, there are a lot of bands that could sell higher priced tickets but don't because they want to be accessable to everyone, not just people with money to burn.

If they sold higher priced tickets, more bands would have incentive to tour. This would make live music more accessible, not less.

Right now they're not accessible to everyone, they're accessible to rich people and a lottery of poor people.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#336

Post by Kiro »

black_puppydog wrote: post #295
Kiro wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would the image being on the chain change? You're buying a signature.

you would be, if the reference at least contained a content hash. as is, you literally just buy a link

The content hash would prove nothing. What you're buying is "this NFT was minted by this artist, as confirmed by their Twitter or verified OpenSea account or whatever". The value is totally dependent on the social contract. Some random person minting the same NFT with the same hash would be worthless, unless they impersonate the artist.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#337

Post by hahaitsfunny »

dfabulich wrote: post #296
hahaitsfunny wrote: post #291

Depending on how you view the world and whether you think nation states and government-backed fiat is a good or bad thing, probably defines your stance on blockchain and cryptocurrencies IMO. I still contend that blockchain has its use cases - journalism, games which wish to institute a real economy instead of a virtual one, voting, etc... Blockchain has been maturing and bitcoin has been around for a minute, but eth…

Blockchains are hierarchical power structures. They're democracies, in fact, but instead of "one person, one vote" you get a share of votes based on how much electricity you waste. As the article explains, mining capacity is centralized, and therefore, so is Web3. Blockchains are no better than any other democratic institution; substantially worse, in fact, because they're wasting electricity to do it. Web3 pretends…

I never claimed they were not - I said they were a big FU to nation state fiat. I don't work on web3 or own crypto. Nation State fiat is a scam too - I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make to me... Am I trading one hierarchical power structure for another? Maybe? Does that mean blockchains hold no promise? No. With POS an eth node will supposedly be able to run on a rasp pi - is that too much electricity?

Doesn't diminish my point that it is trying to disrupt nation state fiat and I am all for that - doesn't mean I have to sign on to whatever the replacement is - I can be against that as well.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#338

Post by o_m »

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…

The sign analogy works. The person owning the sign can't change the house, like painting the walls. That's only for the person owning the house.

If you own an NFT you can't print the image on a t-shirt and sell it, because the artist has the copyright, not you.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#339

Post by miracle2k »

brazzy wrote: post #321
miracle2k wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If your metaphor is correct, it remains correct even with a hash being stored on-chain. Frankly, most NFT critiques seem just as thinly thought through as yours. T…

> And you need a blockchain for this, to give it the credible neutrality needed for it to be considered something equivalent to real ownership; you can't have it be at the mercy of a single entity. No, you don't, and yes, you can. And in fact, you yourself say that this is still the case just a few paragraphs earlier: > People coalesce around this believe, because the edition was released by whoever owns the actual c…

You are right, you can, and people have, for example: seditionart.com

I certainly encourage you to buy NFTs on on those centralized websites. Nevertheless, paying for ledger entries representing art didn't really gain popularity before blockchains, so there is that.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#340

Post by FeepingCreature »

mellavora wrote: post #307
FeepingCreature wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole point of capitalism is that economic equilibrium is also value equilibrium. So if you think it's good to have a Woodstock, unless you like artificial scarcity, you should think that having two Woodstocks is approximately twice as good. Now maybe you cannot produce another Woodstock, like there's some inherently limited resource like management effort or willingness or space or licenses, but that's the idea.

(I don't think that the capitalist ideal matches reality. But you should at least get the idea if you're gonna disagree.)

Post reply on HN