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

361–370 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#361

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #335
happymellon wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How would higher priced tickets be more accessible to poor people?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#362

Post by 0xRolex »

tluyben2 wrote: post #317
meribold wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But that is all solved with signing and verifying in cryptography. Why does it need to be on the blockchain? I think you are asking the same thing somewhat. In many countries (at least in the EU) the gov now has mobile apps (and horrible desktop versions but the idea is the same) which generates a key pair on your device, sends the public key to the gov where it is connected to your tax number and that is it. This in…

The main point of it is to take out thridparties to fight against anything they could enforce. Blockchains are public registries where you cryptographically sign everything you do to ensure it happened. NFTs are digital assets, be it code, music or pictures. You can prove their unicity through the blockchain and if you were to trade an asset you'd have the proof it happened too. Now you could sell your house on a safe p2p market without the need to involve banks for example. It's really the main goal behind the crypto ecosystem, to provide a safe way to stop relying on often abusive thirdparties.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#363

Post by birracerveza »

jdrc wrote: post #359

The mortal sin is to consider artificial rarity a good thing . The internet is infinite, the appeal of the metaverse is exacty because you can be infinitely young, infinitely rich, have infinite partners, break ouf of the constraints of this world. Constrained virtual worlds are called games and have a different objective. If we are to build a zero sum world, we d better stick to the physical one.

EDIT: nvm

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#364

Post by miracle2k »

robbiep wrote: post #357
paxys wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. NFTs are digital trading cards. I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the simple concept.

Well, they’re digital receipts. Because the thing that it’s representing could still disappear or go away. Maybe that has heaps of value, maybe once the server ther points to the thing you’re meant to own goes down or the asset at the url changes it becomes worth 2 parts of sweet f all

> Because the thing that it’s representing could still disappear or go away.

Not if you, the owner, or someone else, stores a copy. Even if the URL associated with the URL is broken, it doesn't change the fact that it still represents the thing people want it to represent.

NFTs are not a backup system for your data.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#365

Post by usrbinbash »

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…

> I currently only like NFTs as representations of digital licenses or tickets etc anyway, so simple hashes work for me.

But we don't need NFTs & Blorkchains for that. Just a simple digital signature is enough. Take all the info of the ticket, hash it, sign it with your private key, put the result into a Matrix Code for convenience and done.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#366

Post by miracle2k »

egeozcan wrote: post #358
paxys wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. NFTs are digital trading cards. I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the simple concept.

They are not cards, they don't store any meaningful data unless you could make the resource immutable. They are more like "Digital trading links-to-assets-you-have-no-control-over"?

Your mistake is thinking that it matters where the data is stored. But storing your trading card image file in the Github Arctic Code Vault just makes it more permanent, it does not change the nature of your NFT at all; neither does storing it on the blockchain.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#367

Post by usrbinbash »

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.

Only if the authority recognizing the ticket allows it.

If they don't, then the name of the original buyer is likely part of the hashed information, and anyone else trying to use the ticket is out of luck.

NFTs still require recognition by the authority actually controlling the goods/services in question.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#368

Post by JSavageOne »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #349
JSavageOne wrote: post #342

This is one of the weakest criticisms to web3 I've seen. Shocked that this is on the front page of HN. Literally every point here has already been talked about and debunked. > Web3 Platforms are Centralized The blockchain itself is decentralized, and you don't have to use centralized platforms. > Mining is Centralized Sure mining is not as decentralized as we'd like it to be, but it is unquestionably less centralized…

> and you don't have to use centralized platforms. Sure, but you'd be missing out on the benefits of the blockchain. Who will buy your paint monkey image certificate of authenticity - let alone pay a small fortune for it - if you put it up for sale on your own website instead of the big exchange where all the whales scout for their next target to over-inflate? You're right in theory, but market forces push towards ce…

> And billions in international foreign and military aid through non-crypto means

That doesn't invalidate crypto

> Traditional banking and fiat money is good

With flaws that crypto solves

> nobody actually pays anything with crypto because of inconvenience, transfer costs, speed and value instability

False, there are merchants that accept payments in crypto and stablecoins. Though it is true that asset transfers are currently the more prominent use case for crypto than everyday transactions.

> it's an asset used to convert from / to fiat money, it's an investment product, it's a ledger of certificates for poorly drawn or generated jpegs.

Ok, and what's the problem? There are many other applications for crypto you didn't address that could be found in any "intro to web3" article. Also dismissing NFTs as just "a ledger of certificates for poorly drawn or generated jpegs" shows you've done literally zero research on NFTs. There's more to NFTs than pictures of monkeys.

> The only success stories and practical applications for crypto and blockchain technology I've heard is people getting rich off it

That's because you haven't done any research on what you're dismissing.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#369

Post by usrbinbash »

0xRolex wrote: post #350
happymellon wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can resell your paper, or email ticket already. How does blockchain make it interesting?

No need to expose yourself, possible anonimity and most important one, the absolute lack of need of a third party which is the thing that most find intresting about blockchains usecases.

Except the most common way to do blockchain transactions are broker services which do require user information. This, combined with the fact that the blockchain is an immutable public ledger (meaning any transaction can be traced back indefinitely), and there goes anonymity.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#370

Post by koonsolo »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #352
paxys wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. NFTs are digital trading cards. I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the simple concept.

Oh they can, but that's just the public appearance; they get excited over them because they see them as potentially high return investments. But of course, the big fish already got their money (and added it to the pile they earned from a couple of scam coins, artificially inflated crypto, etc). Nobody is under any illusions here. Except the media and their gullible audience; the media is in on it and the people behin…

So Shaquille O’Neal bought this Bored Ape NFT: https://opensea.io/assets/0x60e4d786628fea6478f785a6d7e70477...

Are you claiming that this NFT, which everybody knows passed the hands of Shaq, will be worthless in the future?

Bored Ape is kind of like the art of Andy Warhol. Yes, the creators of bored ape made a lot of money, but so did Andy Warhol. Is there anything wrong with that?

If you want to call that all a scam, that's fine. But somehow calling Bored Ape a scam and Warhol art not, is weird. Warhol also had plenty of critics.

If you don't like NFT's that fine, no problem with that. But maybe you could at least try to understand why some people want to spend money on that. And not "because they are a gullible audience".

Post reply on HN