661–670 of 769 posts
Not a climate change denier, but do people seriously believe these events will happen soon? Even if these models are right on ocean levels raising, you have to believe that humans would find a way to engineer a solution to keep these cities afloat so to speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you put a photograph on the blockchain directly? The chain is for transaction processing, stuff like proof of ownership. Want decentralized storage? Toss it on IPFS.
To flip your own comment back on you: Why would you toss it up on IPFS? IPFS isn't a decentralized storage network, it's a data routing/transmission protocol with a DHT.
If my goal was to keep a photograph in perpetuity, I wouldn't necessarily even want to put it on a decentralized system -- I'd put it on archive.org, or amazon glacier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blockchain is also nearly useless at transferring money or money-adjacent things. We'll probably have to agree to disagree there. I could send you $5 in Bitcoin right now no matter what country you're in, what bank you use, and without knowing who you are. It would cost like a $1 which is high for a $5 transaction, but that price wouldn't go up for a more significant amount of money. > But we're talking web3 here,…
> We'll probably have to agree to disagree there. I could send you $5 in Bitcoin right now no matter what country you're in, what bank you use, and without knowing who you are. It would cost like a $1 which is high for a $5 transaction, but that price wouldn't go up for a more significant amount of money. That transaction fee is itself highly variable & dependent on load, though. The more people that actually try to…
Blockchain provides incentives, those incentives can be transformed into cash for the end user. Web2 basically focused on 2 aspects. Transforming the browser into a OS that can run on any computer, using advertising for the generation of money for stakeholders. In regards to advertisement the reason why this was use d was because it worked in the past. Printing press --> newspaper --> advertisements, Radio --> audio advertisements, Movies --> pre-movie advertisements, tv --> commercials. This mechanism has worked before and worked for web2.0. The problem now is that so many companies are involved in data collection on individuals that it has become quiet scary, this was not possible with previous mediums (not to the same degree). Game companies have tried to transition to micro-transactions, psudo-gambling, upgrades as a payment form. Web3 offers a different incentive model that if successful can replace these arguably more scary methods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is exactly the crux. How do I prove who is the original creator? Consensus. We all agree that 0x123457890 is the "Bored Ape" contract, so everything spawned from it is a "real" Bored Ape. It's kind of how we all agree who the real "Picasso" is. This isn't really controversial or hard to grasp, and imo Vitalik's article just muddies the waters.
> This isn't really controversial or hard to grasp It is. Who precisely is "We"? I personally never said 0x123457890 was the OG Bored Ape. What if I band together millions of people and determine that 99x12345678 which I own is actually the OG Bored Ape. How can you stop me? Isn't that what OpenSea is effectively doing...providing a centralized trust system to say "well of course everyone knows OpenSea is the source…
I mean, that's exactly how decentralization works. I can't stop you by design. Simply put (and for better or worse), it's tyranny of the masses. If you can do that (get everyone to treat another contract as the real Bored Ape contract), then you've effectively "forked" -- this has happened a couple of times in BTC and ETH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not all about money, but they now have a couple questionable endeavors like Filecoin and NFT.storage. It seems they are more interested in making money than improving their project, and IPFS has many outstanding issues and limitations.
What's amazing to me is that if you want to find any of these decentralized systems, you have to trust some centralized entity identifying them as the true system. For example, want to download MetaMask? How will you find it? Google MetaMask and trust that Google will have filtered out all the fake MetaMask wallets set up to steal your money. Want to lend money on a DeFi platform like Anchor? Again, Google and hope t…
Proof of Work is the source of truth [0]. That is why Proof of Stake cannot work. You are describing one of the biggest of the problems with PoS perfectly. [0] https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/
> Essentially, the first time a node comes online, and any subsequent time a node comes online after being offline for a very long duration (ie. multiple months), that node must find some third-party source to determine the correct head of the chain. This could be their friend, it could be exchanges and block explorer sites, the client developers themselves, or many other actors. PoW does not have this requirement.
> However, arguably this is a very weak requirement; in fact, users need to trust client developers and/or "the community" to about this extent already. At the very least, users need to trust someone (usually client developers) to tell them what the protocol is and what any updates to the protocol have been. This is unavoidable in any software application. Hence, the marginal additional trust requirement that PoS imposes is still quite low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think that's mainly cultural, actually. "Github is down" is seen as "take the day off". But it actually is pretty easy to work around a remote being temporarily down. Developers can use their local copies of code and merge them when the remote is back up. Or whoever has the latest commits can start a temporary git server in an EC2 instance and tell the developers on slack to update their remote URLs. Of course, if…
Yes, that's my point. It doesn't matter if your protocol is decentralized as long as your business processes rely on having a blessed authoritative repo, which most do. Yes, you can point your remotes somewhere else, but in practice nobody bothers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1. Nope. Still need to convert it to real money for buying something. Gas fees > transfer fees. 2. Nope. It doesn't grant any ownership. It's a just a pointer to a file on third party server. Ownership is enforced by a central authority. Code is not law. 3. Nope. Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme. There is no finance in DeFi. Just scammers running pump and dump schemes and rugpulling sta…
Sure, if you choose an expensive (congested) blockchain to make the transaction. Otherwise the fees are about comparable or in some cases even less (below 1% for a round-trip from "real money" to crypto and back).
> Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme.
What do you mean by "underlying economic activity", and what kind of such activity does for example a bank or fintech possess that distributed ledger tech does not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't really controversial or hard to grasp It is. Who precisely is "We"? I personally never said 0x123457890 was the OG Bored Ape. What if I band together millions of people and determine that 99x12345678 which I own is actually the OG Bored Ape. How can you stop me? Isn't that what OpenSea is effectively doing...providing a centralized trust system to say "well of course everyone knows OpenSea is the source…
> What if I band together millions of people and determine that 99x12345678 which I own is actually the OG Bored Ape. How can you stop me? I mean, that's exactly how decentralization works. I can't stop you by design . Simply put (and for better or worse), it's tyranny of the masses. If you can do that (get everyone to treat another contract as the real Bored Ape contract), then you've effectively "forked" -- this ha…