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

551–560 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#551

Post by vmception »

mbesto wrote: post #538
vmception wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what happens if someone just copies the JPG and puts on their web host? Isn't that essentially what OpenSea is...a hosted service for the JPG. The question then is whose problem is that? “What happens” to who? There are about 6 or 7 distinct parties in the NFT market, so which person are you thinking about? Who would care and why? What does the rehoster get out of it? That’s a good start

Random example I found on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/MichaelReeves/comments/js1ib8/someo... Now let's say instead of Reddit he posted it on OpenSea. The person that owns it OpenSea then lists the image on Redbubble for financial gain. Who then owns it? Clearly the person who owns it on OpenSea? How do we know the person that posted it on Redbubble isn't the true owner and bblaineC isn't the scammer?

Wait, did someone suggest to you that NFT's were a solution to this millennium old reality? Because they aren't. In both scenarios like on Reddit or your NFT version of the scenario, it is up to the consumer to discern (the person that buys a piece of work). These are consumer protection issues before NFTs and after NFTs. People buy non-original work, thats not an NFT problem. People might or might not be able to resell things they buy, whether it is an original or not, that's not an NFT problem. Its not news. Other people try to make it news when NFT's are in the same sentence, but its not clear why. Sometimes when people sell plagiarized work, they receive money, also not news. Its weird I have to even write that, but I guess I have seen people advertise NFTs as something they are not. So try not to be confused by that.

The NFT version of this scenario simply makes prior possession, price history of the prior possession, and royalties to the NFT creator, apparent and makes all of that persevere even after the unauthorized listing on the next site is "taken down" or removes it from their GUI due to reports (there is a scenario where the NFT is the plagiarized one, or a second NFT is created that is the plagiarized one. as opposed to just a raster image uploaded onto a pay-for-photos website). The NFT (both the first and second NFT) would still be tradable as there is no way to actually remove it (some implementations can modify the image shown by the NFT, the NFT itself will still exist because the NFT is just a wrapper, more akin to a picture frame). People like that. In the art world, prior possession required lawyers and courts to only partially ascertain and recreate consensus on, price history was also impossible to get with a whole crop of appraisers and insurers involved to recreate consensus on guesswork, and royalties are practically nonexistent except to the most luckiest and privileged content creators who still have to hope they don't need to bring a legal team to ensure payment. NFT's automate all of those things, and that's a massive tweak to a large market that I can see has been a very misunderstand large market. NFT's won't solve a copyright and license dispute.

In the scenario where both uploads are NFTs, you could check with the artist. Again because its up to the consumer or collector to figure out if the thing they want to buy/consume is authentic and NFT's aren't there to solve that.

NFT's help after consensus on provenance has been reached once. It helps that consensus persevere. Something the art world has lacked for several millennium.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#552

Post by moffkalast »

kllrnohj wrote: post #535
thebean11 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BitTorrent works great, for transferring files. It is completely useless at transferring money or money-adjacent things. That's the fundamental innovation.

Blockchain is also nearly useless at transferring money or money-adjacent things. But we're talking web3 here, not money, so whether it's good or bad at handling money is irrelevant?

> But we're talking web3 here, not money

What exactly, do you think web3 is?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#553

Post by moffkalast »

acdha wrote: post #472
lfkdev wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a bit of censorship resistance" tell that to the russians right now, or to all the other 3. world countrys whose only hope for usable currency is bitcoin

Okay, now think about that a little more carefully: 1. Russia's problem is that other countries are choosing not to do business with them. The mechanism doesn't change that (China and India will do business, at a hefty discount, but that's true for gold, too) and Bitcoin adds some risks because the blockchain model is perfect for enabling censorship because it not only allows people to avoid transactions with sanctio…

This is where Monero comes in.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#554

Post by drugstorecowboy »

melomal wrote: post #461
dalbasal wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... A method for scalping scalpers?

Pretty much. 1000 true fans is essentially the backbone of the NFT argument which basically revolves around artists and their fans parting ways with cash for collectable items. With NFT tickets, the artist always gets paid no matter who is selling the ticket and how many times it get sold. I would say that this is a win for the artist.

Well.. yes that would be a win for the artist. As would a sales tax that goes to artists, or a new law that legalizes pickpocketing for artists. Why is that a good thing? Why should an artist be compensated beyond the first transaction? If this concept took off, how long do you think it would take before Walmart begins taking a cut of every resale? They have just as much right to it as an artist.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#555

Post by miracle2k »

egeozcan wrote: post #441
miracle2k wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't the nature of the NFT have anything to do on the content to be found under that link? NFTs are promoted with those images, and if that's unimportant, then what's the difference between an NFT and some random coin transaction?

Of course, but that content can still exist if the link is broken.

In fact, the file is itself only one if many representation of thr artwork. Reencode the jpeg, you get a different file, but we still think it and the NFT are linked.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#556

Post by moffkalast »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #520
eternityforest wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how much Federation would do against government censorship in practice, for an average person. It's not like it can bypass a firewall or protect you legally if you connect them with an illegal VPN or something. It's great if Facebook is censoring you, but it doesn't seem strong enough to protect you all that strongly against someone bigger who can just shut down a platform if they don't like the content…

I'm not a normal user of bitcoin or any crypto, but I have not seen large unpredictable fees in a while. My transaction fees are almost always 0.00001 BTC or less, with my typical transfer being anywhere from 0.0004 BTC to 0.002 BTC. Sure its a little different than most payment providers where the person initiating the payment pays the fees, but the fees are well under credit card rates.

Assuming you want to actually get bitcoin first you'll need to buy it on an exchange which will charge your absurd fees to transfer it into your own wallet. And if you ever want to do the reverse you'll get charged those same absurd fees again.

In the middle you have the space where you can do BTC to BTC transactions with somewhat smaller fees, sure.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#557

Post by drugstorecowboy »

dmitriid wrote: post #509
jcbrand wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I got it backwards. This is the original statement: "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". The only free market where this is possible is a magical place where there are unlimited resources and abilit…

No, grandparent is absolutely correct. It's not magic, if they charged what tickets are actually worth, there would be no scalpers. That is not a libertarian fantasy or anything close to it, in fact it's not even controversial.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#558

Post by greyhair »

amyjess wrote: post #519
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…

Just look at git adoption. Git's selling point is that it's decentralized and distributed... but just look at the shitshow that happens whenever GitHub goes down. Git may allow for developers to all pull from each other, but in practice your employer will always have a canonical repo that's blessed as the official source, and if that one becomes unavailable for any reason work grinds to a halt. And that goes double i…

Small organizations use github. Really large organizations have their own git servers.

I have worked on both sides of that.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#559

Post by panick21_ »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #550

The issue is that crypto-rooters took the term "Web3" and inevitable tied it to crypto. There are other decentralized approaches that could become a decentralized successor to todays web, (CCNs, IPFS) but are not blockchain/crypto related. So please don't buy into the "only crypto/blockchain" is the future of the decentralized web narrative.

Having been interested in decentralization for many years, I never heard the term 'Web3' before 'Crypto'. Maybe it existed but certainty hear it about 1000x more now.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#560

Post by haswell »

moffkalast wrote: post #552
kllrnohj wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain is also nearly useless at transferring money or money-adjacent things. But we're talking web3 here, not money, so whether it's good or bad at handling money is irrelevant?

> But we're talking web3 here, not money What exactly, do you think web3 is?

This is a question that legitimately needs to be asked. web3 is not just about money, or it should not be called web3.

I think that the lack of a consistent definition and understanding of what web3 is supposed to solve is why every thread about it turns into a bit of a mess.

e.g IPFS is generally considered part of web3, and is not about money at all.

Post reply on HN