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

421–430 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#421

Post by aspenmayer »

saurik wrote: post #403
aspenmayer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you have me digging through the stacks at seclab.cs.ucsb.edu. I recognize the webdesign and some of the titles. Is this the UCSB I2P takedown you refer to? I'm curious who you might mean, but there are only 3 UCSB authors listed. I'll do some more digging. https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~chris/research/doc/raid13_i2p.pdf Only found a very little bit about their work on cryptocurrencies. https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~chri…

The seclab people are not the same professor I was taking about who worked on decentralized systems (and didn't work on security): you are mixing up two stories I told about people in two different subfields.

That's my mistake. Care to clarify whose work you're referring to?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#422

Post by xeyownt »

telomero22 wrote: post #220
yashg wrote: post #31

Agree 100%. Web3 is useless. The whole web3 thing is an extension to get more people and more real money to get into the crypto ecosystem and provide liquidity to the early adopters and insiders. I haven't found one legitimate use case for blockchain. The only thing it is useful for it speculative gambling. I wrote about it some time ago and and shared here on HN https://yash.info/blog/what-is-web3/

Here are just some of the use cases 1. 100x cheaper, faster cross-border transfers 2. Immutable, digital, accessible, secure ownership of music, video, real-estate, cars, gaming assets, health data 3. Instant access to nearly all possible financial products (loans, lending, startup investments etc.) without a middle man There are many, many more use cases. Crypto drastically increases accountability, transparency, ac…

Wow, what a brain wash. Are you Matt Damon?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#423

Post by bitcoin_anon »

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.

Bitcoin is about sound money in the real world. Artificial rarity is a feature in that space. Proof of work is about grounding the system in the physical world.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#424

Post by rvz »

genge wrote: post #417

This article is realy lazy. If you want an actually valid argument against web3, here is Tim O'Reilly's take. He is the creator of the term web2.0 and created much of what we know as open source: https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excit... I don't understand how these types of articles can reach the front page of hackernews. A hadoop system could provide a replacement? That's like arguing a multi-…

At least this critic in [0] knows that it is too early to get excited and he is not ignoring the technologies that are still useful that came out of many cryptocurrencies like Stellar, XRP and others.

> For example, are Ripple and Stellar more successful platforms for cross-border remittances than bank transfers, credit cards, or PayPal, in the same way that Google Maps was better than Rand McNally or first-generation GPS pioneers like Garmin? There’s some evidence that crypto is becoming a meaningful player in this market, though regulatory hurdles are slowing adoption.

That use case is still alive and valid here.

[0] https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excit...

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#425

Post by stdbrouw »

genge wrote: post #417

This article is realy lazy. If you want an actually valid argument against web3, here is Tim O'Reilly's take. He is the creator of the term web2.0 and created much of what we know as open source: https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excit... I don't understand how these types of articles can reach the front page of hackernews. A hadoop system could provide a replacement? That's like arguing a multi-…

The article may be lazy but this is not a very useful critique, either. "Many topics that are solved by certain features", what does that even mean?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#426

Post by jcbrand »

dmitriid wrote: post #398
jcbrand wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pricing is the way in which information about supply and demand is conveyed in a decentralized manner in a free market. When prices of a good or service goes up, it incentivises other manufacturers or service providers to produce more of that good or service, which increases supply and puts downward pressure on prices. So to answer your question, higher priced tickets increases supply, which causes lower priced ticke…

There are literally thousands of concerts, and sporting events, and any other events that people buy tickets to. Guess why people still go to Sziget or Woodstock. Also guess why it's impossible to just click your fingers and pull an unlimited number of Woodstocks out of thin air.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The fact that there is a limited number of Woodstocks is irrelevant.

There are other organizers and bands who can also offer concerts, and at a reduced price compared to the premium that something like Woodstock would demand. That's competition, and it puts downward pressure on concert prices in general, thereby helping people on a tight budget.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#427

Post by jcbrand »

dmitriid wrote: post #401
FeepingCreature wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30776666 Free market as imagined by libertarians can only exist in the presence of unlimited resources and magic.

You have it backwards.

Markets exist because of scarcity, not because of abundance. If something is available in unlimited abundance, there's no need of a market for it.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#428

Post by Kiro »

black_puppydog wrote: post #419
Kiro wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point. Indeed content hash and signature from the artist would have to be on-chain, and somehow the signing party needs to be established as the real one as well. So... it's even worse that none of that is happening. With NFTs, to me it really just looks like BS all the way down.

I also think it's BS but not because of what the NFT contains or not. The signature is already intrinsically part of the NFT since you can see what wallet minted it on the blockchain. When you mint an NFT you sign the transaction on the blockchain with your wallet.

As you say what actually matters is proof that the signing party is the real one. And this is where the social contract matters. What gives it value is that artist X says they own wallet Y and that you can see that NFT Z was minted by wallet Y. It's just a fugazi but it can't be fixed by adding stuff to the NFT object.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#429

Post by eternityforest »

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…

If blockchain had never been invented, we'd be a lot farther ahead. BitTorrent proves the idea can work. And Tox is already totally usable, aside from it's mobile data usage.

Federation is the other problem. It's decentralized without real end user benefits other that a bit of censorship resistance, within the limits of the hosting company. It doesn't add reliability or offline communications on the LAN.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#430

Post by eternityforest »

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…

I suspect a lot of that is driven by a small number of privacy advocates, and I really don't like the extremism.

There are people who, if they had their way, would probably ban or highly regulate CCTV cameras.

And somehow, after all these years, right to encrypt and right to use anonymity routing is still under attack at times.

The previous approach to internet privacy assumed it was a public place. The current assumptions are totally unprecedented, they are basically trying to make every interaction not only private but as confidential as a therapists office.

And, even beyond that, they want to eliminate things that even possibly could be used to violate privacy, removing features rather than allowing opt-in, only allowing a weak revokable consent to data processing, etc.

I would much rather they apply a targeted approach of ensuring privacy is always available to those who want it, without trying to eliminate public digital spaces as a category.

Post reply on HN