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

651–660 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#651

Post by MrMan »

usrbinbash wrote: post #573
0xRolex wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By brokers you mean Centralised Exchanges ? If yes I agree it's an aberation as we've with recently with Russia's problems people getting banned from it because these exchanges are bounded to obey country's laws. Everyone should leave CEXs to get on DEXs and learn about DeFi but as cool as it can be it's everything but userfriendly and as it is it'll never make it to public adoption. About tracing transactions as lon…

> Everyone should leave CEXs to get on DEXs and learn about DeFi That is not going to happen, for the same reasons why most people don't dig their own wells, learn carpentry to make their own furniture, or weave their own cloth and learn how to tailor clothes. Every complex enough system will always have centralized points, aka. gatekeepers. That is how human society self-organises.

any society constrained by time and physical limits will tend towards this I think.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#652

Post by TheCowboy »

akyu wrote: post #474
aaaaaaaaata wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not you "see" more transactions, faster...?

The block producer chooses transaction ordering. They control who gets sandwiched. Running your own node won't change anything.

The trading site's performance is quite high latency, and uses a 3rd party endpoint (I forget which one) that doesn't emphasize performance. You reduce the latency of your orders, acquire real-time price information, notification of liquidity changes faster, etc.

If you think it's to prevent attacks in some absolute sense, that isn't the goal. Your goal is to make life more difficult for them and/or decrease profit incentives.

You only need to remove some of the profit to make it not worth someone's time to maintain, and at least you're bleeding less money if they do continue. You get to be more strategic in how you place orders and make it really annoying for a botter or force the botter to blacklist your trades from your attacks (something that has happened before). You can also identify flaws in the bot and exploit them to make it bleed money(this has been demonstrated as possible many times).

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#653

Post by kawaiikouhai »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #645

"but we are just to make a few white rich crypto bros richer than ever before" I was about to be with you until you unnecessarily brought race into this. Do you have reliable statistics on the race of the major miners and does it even matter?

And by taking a single inflammatory and ultimately inconsequential soundbite from the article, you now risk derailing the entire discussion into a flamewar.

Assuming, of course, that wasn't your original intent to begin with.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#654

Post by valcron1000 »

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…

Have you used several middlemen? I have, because I have no other option if I want to actually get paid. I've used Wise, Payoneer, Paypal, Paysera, Western Union, Revoult, Bankera, among others that I'm probably forgetting.

They all suck. They decide what I can or can't do with my money. They can freeze my accounts, stop transfers, force me to share details and I can't do anything about it. I rather use crypto than any of those awful services.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#655

Post by 0ldskool »

oblio wrote: post #616
spookthesunset wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really lack of repo access that makes GitHub outages bad. It’s all the “value-add” stuff on top of the repo that makes outages suck. You’ve got workflows bolted on top that block forward progress when it goes down. Hooks for when push requests happen, when commits happen, etc. You’ve got code reviews in your workflow that cannot happen when the service is down. Basically there is much more to a service like…

And it's going to be the same with cryptocurrencies. All the interesting stuff for normal people is built on top.

well the case is that if github keeps going down and becomes completely unreliable you can take your decentralized code and more it to a different provider. Those other providers will also have value added stuff and you will not lose the core of your business/work (your source code).

If it was a pure central authority + protocol you would be doomed to live and die with them. Imagine if instead of git + github you had some source code protocol that only allowed you to checkout the latest commit of some branch. All code history needed to be viewed by connecting to the central servers. Why not make it even worse, you could only view+edit a specific file of the latest commit on your machine. All other files must live on the central server, you are not allowed to build/compile code locally either... Centralization is the process of you giving up control to a "trusted" entity. If they fail you lose everything

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#656

Post by TheCowboy »

landemva wrote: post #166
TheCowboy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Run your own node. This is lazy reporting It isn't practical for the majority of people to run their own node. Even Vitalik Buterin acknowledges[1] this isn't realistic for the current state of things. Last year I was interested in running a sidechain node and I was shocked when I looked at minimum system requirements. I can't just run it in the background and I have a 5600X Ryzen. Plus my NVMe drive needed to be m…

' My interest for running a node was ... to attempt to counter frontrunning aka sandwich attacks. ' You may have misunderstood the eth tech stack. Running your own node is not a means to prevent sandwich attacks.

I specifically said "counter" not "prevent". I explained in another post.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#657

Post by valcron1000 »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #181
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

You would need to deal with 2 middlemen: exchange A and exchange B. And exchanges are worse than banks in every way

Not at all. I buy crypto through P2P, and I decide with whom.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#658

Post by vanveenada »

smackeyacky wrote: post #82
vmception wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don't care about that the impractical enthusiast stuff, I care about the bloggers that make these flippant dismissals instead of talking about the impractical things that are possible. I simultaneously observe that the impractical things can be made more practical . For example, Metamask with a non-default RPC node is great compared to using crypto before Metamask. Phantom wallet on Solana is even further impro…

This sort of argument reminds me of the old doctrinaire Marxists, who insisted communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism. Turns out Web3, in theory, sounds fine, but the implementations and uses of it all fall back to centralised networks and nefarious purposes. I think it's time to recognise Web3 for what it is: a massive con fronted by people who sell a fantasy of open, decentralised co…

I mean this is neither here nor there, but "communism could work if only it could be done without authoritarianism" is not a Marxist take, doctrinaire or otherwise. If you're a bolshevik, you believe that having and defending a revolution requires a vanguard of devoted party members who run shit. If you're a democratic socialist, likewise you think there needs to be a centralized group in control during the revolution -- you just think that this centralized group should be selected by vote rather than self-appointed. If you're an anarchist (and anarchists are typically not marxist), then you're someone who thinks that managing a revolution without centralized control is possible.

And you might be thinking: why on earth would someone argue that putting the centralized party in control is a good idea? There's a simple reason for that: the Paris Commune.

Why does the Paris Commune matter? They tried to run a revolution on anarchist lines... and so, instead of immediately marching on Versailles to take down the extant government, they just sort of faffed around in committee meetings until a couple of months later the extant government's army came and killed them all. Leninism (the centralized, essentially authoritarian stuff) was a reaction to that. Because they observed how thoroughly fucked over the Commune was, specifically due to the lack of the sort of centralized control that would get people to take up arms and march on Versailles, the bolsheviks decided that they would do everything they possibly could to centralize the fuck out of everything.

And I mean, they lasted for longer than the commune did? At the very least, the bolshevik experiment had some measure of democracy until Stalin came along 7 years after the revolution.

So, yeah. people don't believe "communism could work if it could be done without authoritarianism." Instead there's an active debate (running for a century and a half now) about what type and level of centralized control is necessary to do a revolution without being immediately killed by the old government, and what level of centralized control is so hyper-centralized that it makes a Stalin happen.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#659

Post by qeternity »

majormajor wrote: post #160
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy. Most people don't want to run their own mail servers. That isn't the same thing as saying we need a single entity to be in charge of email. There are thousands of independent email providers. Your emails get marked as spam if you have two users, not if you have two thousand. And small providers getting marked as spam isn't because it's necessary to prevent spam, it's because large providers…

Email is one I keep coming back to when I try to picture a future that runs on blockchain tech. It seems like even if there are enough situations where the zero-trust nature proves to make sense to users, it would be silly for them to all use the same chains. Why deal with the overhead and transaction costs? Why wouldn't there be as many chains as their are email providers, and then most of them would only have value…

> Email is one I keep coming back to when I try to picture a future that runs on blockchain tech.

Fun fact: bitcoin's pow algorithm was invented to prevent spam.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#660

Post by panick21_ »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #583
panick21_ wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the web is not a decentralized place. You put content on servers, and everybody downloads that content from there. There a copies or caches, yes (CDNs but also old-school http proxy caches). But if I remove content from my server (or a tweet), its no longer accessible by standard means. We build a whole set of technologies to not have a single-point-of-failure (i.e. load balanced servers + replication) but for ex…

> but for example in CCN/IPFS

That is why I a fan of those. Not sure what you are arguing. My you misunderstood my initial comment.

Post reply on HN