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

701–710 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#701

Post by nl »

everfree wrote: post #115
nl wrote: post #20

This is a pretty weak piece. > Your wallet (MetaMask), marketplaces (OpenSea), APIs (Alchemy) are all central platforms. The whole point of the blockchain as a decentralized database idea is that people are free (in the "you don't need permission" sense) to build on it. Just because OpenSea is a popular interface for trading NFTs it doesn't mean you can't also trade those same NFTs elsewhere. And your wallet isn't "c…

> And your wallet isn't "centralized" at all. Just because MetaMask happens to be implememented using a server doesn't mean you can't export your seed phrase and import it into (eg) TrustWallet and use that instead or as well. It's not even that. Metamask defaults to using a particular server, but you can set it to anything you want to in Settings. The original post is just wrong. Aside from the default set for conve…

> The original post is just wrong. Aside from the default set for convenience, Metamask isagnostic to whether you want to plug it into a centralized or decentralized API service.

This is all true!

But I think Metamask only uses the OpenSea API for displaying NFTs (at least I haven't been able to find a setting for it). That was raised in the Moxie piece, which explained a lot more about the design decisions that went into this:

"What I found most interesting, though, is that after OpenSea removed my NFT, it also no longer appeared in any crypto wallet on my device.... MetaMask accomplishes this by making API calls... what other option do they have?"

I think this is a valid criticism because it is balanced and nuanced.

But you are right that the linked article missed all this.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#702

Post by smackeyacky »

vanveenada wrote: post #658
smackeyacky wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 revolutio…

Interesting - thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#703

Post by eternityforest »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #699
eternityforest wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah. Some people seem to be reporting much higher fees in the $10 to $25 range at times.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#704

Post by valcron1000 »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #685
valcron1000 wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is not the experience of the vast majority of crypto owners right? How can it be a defense of anything if only very few people even use it like that. Also, you haven't solved the question of middlemen. Now instead of mostly trustworthy Binance you would have to deal with the guy in the dark alley who pinky promises not to run away with your cash.

Not in Argentina. The P2P market is big enough that you don't need to worry about finding buyers/sellers. Also, "dark alley", here? Not even close. We've been doing this for several years now (used to be only USD), it's a well oiled machine.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#705

Post by TheCowboy »

landemva wrote: post #673
TheCowboy wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Running your own node neither counters nor prevents front running your transactions. If you send tx to standard mempool, the tx can be seen and front run. There are existing solutions for the narrow use case you seem to have - flashbots and a few others. And they have cost savings to you of not running your tx (saving eth gas fees) if your tx submission does not win.

I explained in my other comment, but I see no mention any of those aspects of countering a sandwich botter.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#706

Post by jdthedisciple »

kawaiikouhai wrote: post #653
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.

You see, point taken.

But I do wonder if your comment would be the same and the soundbite still be inconsequential had the targeted race been a certain other one... allow me to just state that. Am observing interesting change in societal norms

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#707

Post by thinkmassive »

0ldskool wrote: post #639
thinkmassive wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confusing the money itself with the institutions that manage the money.

I don't think so. They are creating the metaphor that banks == blockchain implementation + stakeholders, money == blockchain tokens. Currently most of the cryptocurrencies you see with ICOs are just erc20 tokens ontop of ETH (therefore centralized). For banks they leverage SWIFT + other more local mechanisms (double entry accounting, etc...) to resolve transfers. Its possible in the future we will develop a mechanism…

Does your bank deal in dollars or its own token?

Is a cryptocurrency exchange more like a bank or a currency?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#708

Post by landemva »

TheCowboy wrote: post #705
landemva wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running your own node neither counters nor prevents front running your transactions. If you send tx to standard mempool, the tx can be seen and front run. There are existing solutions for the narrow use case you seem to have - flashbots and a few others. And they have cost savings to you of not running your tx (saving eth gas fees) if your tx submission does not win.

I explained in my other comment, but I see no mention any of those aspects of countering a sandwich botter.

Front run + back run is sandwich. Front running has also been called miner extractable value. This is now called maximal extractable value.

You may want to look a little further, or not.

https://github.com/flashbots/pm

'... mitigating the negative externalities of Maximal Extractable Value ...'

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#709

Post by landemva »

preseinger wrote: post #498
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…

> 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. Why, though? What's the sell? What does a decentralized future get me, concretely , that I don't have now? Appeals to user privacy and data ownership aren't concrete things. Concrete things are faster loading…

Those fortunate to live in a place with somewhat stable currency, decent rule of law, and decent banking often don't see the advantages of holding assets without custodians.

My keys, my coins.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#710

Post by alexb_ »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #689
tsujp wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proprietary network The statement was protocols, not networks. Not all protocols involve networks. But let's assume you did mean protocol here and not network. > it seems clear that for "chat, video conferencing, file sharing" (as well as social media), proprietary networks [protocols] are more much much more popular than standardized protocols. No that's categorically false. HTTP came into existence in 1989 and HT…

I think we're talking about different things. I'm not sure if you know we are talking about different things are are doing it intentionally, or if we are just talking past each other. I can't say for sure what vishnugupta meant, but what I thought when I read their comment are: * Most people's chat goes over things like Slack or MS Teams -- proprietary protocols. Not the open protocols that do exist like IRC. * Most…

What? Microsoft uses UDP/TCP for teams, Signal uses the open-source Signal protocol, Whatsapp uses XMPP, Facetime uses many open standards, "file sharing" all uses https (centralized) or bittorrent (decentralized). I don't think you understand what you are really talking about. Almost every single company does not take the time to develop their own protocol just to be an asshole. They are built for maximizing profit at minimal cost, and not using open standards is unnecessary cost.
Post reply on HN