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

641–650 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#641

Post by matthewaveryusa »

TeeWEE wrote: post #629

If you store your webapp on IPFS, and connect to the blockchain. Then its truly decentralized. We need browsers to support IPFS... Even when blockchain fails, IPFS will be a big. Especially if we are going to be a multi-planetary species.

Actually browsers don't need any new features. All you need is a proxy that can decide to fetch resources on www vs. ipfs. I did a small PoC with mitmproxy where if the subdomain is ipfs I fetch the resource from ipfs instead of the web. worked great, also worked without the proxy because I hosted it on the www as well.

I also did a youtube-dl proxy: First time it goes to youtube and in the background I fire up youtube-dl and cache the content. on subsequent requests I serveup a minimal html site with the local video downloaded.

The only thing about mitmproxy is it can be a bit slow.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#642

Post by GuB-42 »

delaaxe wrote: post #584
GuB-42 wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Addresses should be portable You need centralization for that. And in fact, you can already do it. Just register a domain name and use it for your email address. Most registrars offer a mail redirection service. And if you don't like your registrar, there is an official procedure to transfer your domain name, and therefore you email address. There are also official procedures regarding getting back a stolen domain…

ENS names on Ethereum work this way and are decentralized

Not completely:

  > Who owns the ENS rootnode? What powers does that grant them?
  > The root node is presently owned by a multisig contract, with keys held by trustworthy individuals in the Ethereum community...
To be fair, they did a good job at decentralizing what can be decentralized, but there is still a central authority. But DNS is also mostly technically decentralized, most root servers are actually multiple machines spread all over the world, and there are several roots. People don't talk to ICANN directly, instead they use registrars that talk to ICANN. And ICANN delegates authority to TLD owners. Besides storing the database on a blockchain, ENS is not so different. Even payment is in dollars (converted to ETH, but the official numbers are dollars).

I didn't look it up too much but it looks like a key difference is that once you register a domain, it is yours for as long as you have paid for and no one can change that (or maybe it isn't, in this case, it is exactly like DNS). It is a good and a bad thing. It is good against censorship, but it also means that if someone registers a domain under your company name (or personal name) and point it to child porn, there is nothing you or anyone else can do.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#643

Post by MrMan »

yashg wrote: post #119
valcron1000 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about international transfers without a middle man dictating what, when and how? If not for blockchain I would probably be working on a completely different field. Just because you don't find it useful does not mean that it's the same for everyone else

I don't understand this hatred for middlemen amongst the crypto crowd. Middlemen provide trust. You want to replace middlemen as trust providers with code? The trustless solutions like Proof of work are slow and inefficient and cost much more than middlemen do. And despite all of that the cryptoverse still has middlemen and centralised platforms. Because not everyone has to run their own node. Be your own banks is no…

crypto VCs just want to shuffle the chairs and create chaos which encourages the rise of new middlemen who they want to finance. its really simple

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#644

Post by 0ldskool »

pharke wrote: post #582
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…

I think we just need a balance between decentralization and centralization. Think of banking as an example. If you want to be fully decentralized you can just use cash only and keep all of your money (or gold) in a safe at home. A fully centralized option is to have one national bank that everyone uses. Neither are great options but they both exist in practice. What's currently prevalent in a lot of places are a few…

My opinion is that the backbone should always be decentralized and open. i.e. the internet.

What is built ontop of it can be pseudo-centralized and/or regulated if needed but there is always the technical ability to re-decentralize if needed. My main concern is that I want the creation to outlast the creators/controllers. What happens if an important company gets bought and its IP split up? What if the new owners simple disable the product or put it behind a paywall. Look at bittorrent, the new owners completely screwed it up but the protocol + previous implementations could continue to be used. Look at Facebook's double standard of how they censor content.

I personally think anything that is popular + important enough to be used by much of the world should always have an open backbone should things go wrong with the current company+implementation. Open source is a form of decentralization. I also think decentralization of networks (backbones) is important to prevent one organization from achieving a "network affect" that makes them the central authority on a given resource (facebook, twitter, etc...)

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#646

Post by valcron1000 »

cardy31 wrote: post #91
valcron1000 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about international transfers without a middle man dictating what, when and how? If not for blockchain I would probably be working on a completely different field. Just because you don't find it useful does not mean that it's the same for everyone else

Turns out most people wanting to do international transfers without a middleman are criminals. Regular people are for the most part fine with international transfers going through banks, likely via SWIFT.

I dare you to send me a SWIFT transfer. Not only is very expensive, but most likely I will get my account frozen because international transfers are pretty much not allowed.

It's always the same: entitled people from first world countries where the banking system actually works.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#647

Post by 0ldskool »

mwattsun wrote: post #447
silisili wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete opposite take. Imagine putting all your eggs in Myspace, Geocities, Angelfire, AOL, or probably soonish, Facebook. The internet would have up and died. Yet these centralized providers come and go, but the web remains. Decentralization isn't about doing things yourself, it's about having constant choice. To flee sinking ships, to bet on rising stars. The web is fine. Web3 will pass like myspace, and the web w…

I'm often confused because "decentralized" means different things to different people, like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. BitTorrent and other peer to peer apps are decentralized, but are they really when the data flows through the pipes of a few Telco's? I think web3 means there isn't a central authority for conducting transactions with other people, but I have a nagging feeling that this could be acc…

Without decentralization you wouldn't have "A few Telco's" you would have 1 global telco. The most hardcore form of decentralization usually means that there is no centralization ontop of the decentralize medium. I think this is in general unlikely. People are lazy and tend to congregate together and therefore there will always be some form of centralization. Not everyone wants to think about the implementation details and just wants stuff to work without caring how. Whats important with decentralization is choice and future proofing. When one company dies or becomes untrustworthy you can jump onto a different one.

Proof of Work is one implementation but not the only one, there are many more efficient versions now. You might as well complain about Dial-up saying internet is a waste and will never amount to anything because the phone line is always tied up....

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#648

Post by 0ldskool »

oblio wrote: post #614
silisili wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soon in the relative sense, perhaps...I didn't mean to imply like next year. But 5-10 years from now? I can see it.

Yahoo had a revenue of $7.4bn in 2020 and Yahoo was many times smaller and less impactful than Facebook. Facebook will bury us both.

I personally think facebook saw itself dieing which is why it focused so hard on the Metaverse and acquiring companies. Facebook as its own product may die but the company will probably live on in some form or another. I feel like unlike Yahoo, Facebook is full of very capable and technical people. Even if they make a bunch of misteps and bad predications they will find alternatives and will make a come back.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#649

Post by valcron1000 »

hiq wrote: post #325
everfree wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've actually tried to send an international wire transfer, but it requires more paperwork/effort, is more expensive, and is less reliable than signing a crypto transaction. Many smaller banks require you to physically drive to the branch and wait in line to send one. They usually cost upwards of $40 and that's before currency conversion, which is done at a rate that may or may not be favorable. Mak…

> I don't know if you've actually tried to send an international wire transfer, but it requires more paperwork/effort, is more expensive, and is less reliable than signing a crypto transaction. Don't platforms such as https://wise.com/ solve international wire transfer problems? I have experience with only a few currencies, but as long as you can do transfers in your home currency online you should be able to do the…

The problem here is that I'm tied to "Wise", and they can single handedly change how the service works. They decide to which accounts I can send money, not me. They decide what data I must share, not me. They decide the fees, not me. It's just another middle man, like Payoneer, Paysera, Paypal, Revoult, Bankera, Western Union, etc. (yes, I tried them all).

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#650

Post by vanveenada »

neelc wrote: post #103
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…

This. The sad thing is that people like the convenience of centralized systems. Humans are lazy. They'll go with the #1 option, even if it means building a centralized monopoly. I should've made this point clearer. Note: I am the article's author.

Do you knit?

Do you wear sweaters?

The sweaters you have -- did you knit them?

Do you wear shirts?

Did you sew them yourself?

If not, why are you so lazy?

Post reply on HN