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

691–700 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#691

Post by 0ldskool »

TameAntelope wrote: post #567
akyu wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a distorted retelling of history. Mining pools ultimately did settle on voting in favor of the hard fork, but did so through collusion and lack of transparency. Most notably, ethermine miners voted against the hard fork, but the pool operators contributed the entire pools votes in favor of the fork any way. There were similar situations with other mining pools, and in general the actual miners were left in th…

Yeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a decentralized network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly.

how does that differ from a centralized network. Let me copy/paste your comment

  Yeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a decentralized network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly.
into

  Yeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a CENTRALIZED network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly.
I see no difference.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#692

Post by 0ldskool »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #579
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is too nuanced a take for most people, the kind who want to engaged in polarized 'discussions', to care about. Or use-case specific coins that solve a particular problem (Filecoin IPFS relationship). Web3, crypto, blockchain have all become poisoned topics that are mostly divorced from the technological characteristics underneath them. This combined with the idea that if those technologies don't solve a problem…

The thing is that no one has the authority to decide what "Web3" even is. It kind of implies a succession to the established Web 2.0 term. But Web 2.0 is also no clearly defined term, and it was also not established a-priori. I.e. the term Web 2.0 was somehow coined as a reference to a broad set of technologies in the Web sphere that were supposed to change the web. It is mostly associated with the evolution from the…

Nobody has the right but there are obvious ways to differentiate them. You pool a set of majority features together that did not exist in a previous iteration. Really its hard to do before the implementation is complete. basically its hard to define web3 before there is a web3. What is happening is that there are parties who are actively trying to make major changes to how majority of the internet is used, that new version is therefore web3.

Its like how we different between epochs or periods of time. They are just abstractions of ideas/things/beings put into a bucket.

Web1.0 was essentially a static web with static pages. Its just how the internet was mostly used during that time period. Web2.0 essentially transformed HTTP + javascript to the standard OS used to run programs. No more installing software locally... well guess what in web1.0 days people still had dynamic websites (php, cgi, flash, java applet) and in the web2.0 days I still have to install video games from steam. They are just general buckets to help our brains more easily categorize time periods and the major differences between them.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#693

Post by Sprocklem »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #436
beambot wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is centralized. Internet routing infrastructure (e.g. BGP) is decentralized. Capitalism itself is decentralized allocation of resources. Power grids are decentralized loads and (increasingly) generation. It's true that centralization & decentralization tend to operate like a pendulum over time. Having a blockchain that provides historic cryptographic evidence of provenance with a modicum of worldwide t…

'Capitalism itself is decentralized allocation of resources' So long as you keep monopolies and abuse of power in check, in the past 30 years we have gone from a dozen conpetitors to like 2 or 3 player cartel in many industries

Notably, this is the result of a failure in our (necessarily) centralized anti-trust system. In the past 30 years, the government has been reticent to pursue anti-trust cases against the growing number of monopolies/oligopolies.

Without the centralized regulation of decentralized system, they seem to consistently centralize around a few key players to the detriment of the system.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#694

Post by dmitriid »

drugstorecowboy wrote: post #635
dmitriid wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they charged what tickets are actually worth, there would be no scalpers Scalpers' motive is to gain profit off of a limited resource. It doesn't matter if the tickets cost even less than the concert costs to produce. By the way, who determines the "actual worth" of tickets? > That is not a libertarian fantasy or anything close to it That is not what I was responding to.

The price people are willing to pay is who determines the actual worth of the ticket. Doesn't matter if its from the ticket booth or the scalper.Do people sell tickets for less than the concert costs to produce where you live? Thats a very flawed business model. Could it be instead that the pricing model for tickets doesn't adequately reflect what people are willing to pay? If ticket booths charged exactly what scalp…

> The price people are willing to pay is who determines the actual worth of the ticket.

Indeed

> Do people sell tickets for less than the concert costs to produce where you live?

No, they don't, at it's not what I said.

> If ticket booths charged exactly what scalpers charge would that change anything for you?

Ni idea why you're asking me this question

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#695

Post by eternityforest »

thebean11 wrote: post #541
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?

> 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,…

That's the problem. Web3 adds payment layers to things, instead of finding ways to make things "too cheap to meter".

Decentralized insurance seems like a horrible idea. Who makes the decisions? And who do you sue if they turn out to be a scam? How can you sue anyone without a centralized legal system?

At best, DeFi seems like a last resort, being marketed as a replacement for the whole bank system, while still not providing core services the current system does, and calling the lack of those services a feature rather than a bug.

It may have uses to certain niche groups, but the name web3 implies it's some kind of revolution on the scale of web2.

But most people have exactly no use for cryptocurrency. I don't want my money outside the traditional reversible financial system.

DeFi loans seem to mostly be based on large amounts of collateral. Greatly defeating the purpose of taking out a loan, which, unless you are rich and doing wierd finance stuff, is because you need money that you don't have.

I know very few people with any reason to touch Web3, unless it provides something of interest for anyone but rich people with a grudge against the government.

It would be fine as a niche thing, but unfortunately it has completely taken over the tech scene to an insane degree.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#696

Post by eternityforest »

0ldskool wrote: post #663
kllrnohj wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think you are mistaken in 2 aspects. Blockchain != web3. Blockchain + cryptocurrencies make up a large part of web3 because they provide an incentive mechanism to be decentralized. Web3 is about decentralization, other solutions that follow the goals of decentralization of the web can fall into web3. I would say IPFS falls into this category. Other possible solution/algorithms that focus on decentralization could a…

Web3's model involves users actually paying for stuff. Even with all the tracking, the ad model is a win for accessibility to the poor. I'd rather be completely tracked everywhere I go then left out of all the important conversations.

Web3 kind of IS just blockchain at this point. Some are even calling for a Web4, as a non blockchain more performant version of web3 not focused on financial features.

I suspect if any P2P tech gets big without a token, people won't actually call it web3.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#697

Post by eternityforest »

0ldskool wrote: post #666
encryptluks2 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Using blockchain ontop of IPFS is to provide incentives. I don't know what is "questionable" about Filecoin, it seems fine to me. I used IPFS before blockchain but mostly just to play around with, never for any serious projects. Filecoin is simply a way to get more people to use IPFS. NFT.storage is the same, they see a market they would be a perfect fit for and try to get more and more people using IPFS.

IPFS is still complicated and inefficient because it spews provider records to bazillions of blocks, because they insist on random access to files and chunks.

As far as I know it also still spews your entire wantlist to all peers, which could be hundreds, in hopes that maybe one of them happens to have a popular block you want.

It's also immutable first. So you can't change anything without changing the parent, and so on all the way up the tree, which is fine for some kinds of content but not others.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#698

Post by eternityforest »

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.

Google tells me that 0.0004BTC is over 16 dollars.

Credit cards are 2 to 4 percent.

Most people pay their only large payments(Rent and bills) with cheaper direct transfer schemes from zero to a few USD.

For a 16 dollar fee to be better than 3%, you would have to spend 480USD in one transaction, on the kind of thing that you'd normally have a fee at all for. Something I have only done an extremely small handful of times in my entire life.

A few of my more well off friends might have computer parts or jewelry worth that much. My laptop is the only single thing I own close to that price, and even then, it's not much over it.

For a trip to the grocery store for a single person, bitcoin would probably be a 8% to 20% fee.

Flat fees are a regressive sales tax.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#699

Post by jermaustin1 »

eternityforest wrote: post #698
jermaustin1 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google tells me that 0.0004BTC is over 16 dollars. Credit cards are 2 to 4 percent. Most people pay their only large payments(Rent and bills) with cheaper direct transfer schemes from zero to a few USD. For a 16 dollar fee to be better than 3%, you would have to spend 480USD in one transaction, on the kind of thing that you'd normally have a fee at all for. Something I have only done an extremely small handful of tim…

You’ve misread. When sending $16, I am charged a fee of $0.40 or less.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#700

Post by OrlandoHakim »

Kalium wrote: post #501
OrlandoHakim wrote: post #471

It is hard to advocate for the value of decentralized systems without sounding like a hand-waving conspiracy theorist. The benefits of decentralization do come at a cost of efficiency and throughput and they are often harder to quantify or justify unless one takes a harder look at the fully loaded cost of centralization. As an example, consider the fact that MacDonald’s is by far the most prolific restaurant in the w…

> I would argue that monoculture and food homogenization engineered to maximize calories out per $ in have come at the cost of diversity. I think the problem with this isn't that you come across as hand-waving. The problem with this line of argument is that there's no developed case for why anyone should care or value this particular presupposed diversity being lost. One could argue that a profuse diversity was lost…

It is arguable whether or not Bitcoin counts as part of Web3. I would argue it is the original Web3 technology (blockchain) and so it is an essential component of web3. Also, I understand Bitcoin the best so can make a stronger case for it than NFTs or other Web3 concepts.

I would argue that one of the core reasons why Bitcoin was invented was to separate money from state and create a new form of quasi-money quasi-digital gold that could prevent powerful central actors from arbitrarily manipulating it’s supply based on their whims and desires. Bitcoin was born out of the ashes of the great financial crisis.

The Bitcoin genesis block famously contains a quote from the Times of London which reads as follows: “Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks.”

You may not personally see that as a problem, but I do as do many others. Bitcoin does introduce it’s own problems but I would argue that it does an excellent job of fixing the problem of allowing for a money free from government control, with censorship resistant peer-to-peer payments (remember the Canadian truckers?), no counter-party risk, and predictable inflation policy for the next 100 years.

Yes it is slow and inefficient and it uses a lot of energy and it is also volatile, but it also allows for things that were never possible before it existed.

Post reply on HN