No post body was provided.
Web3 is expensive P2P
21–30 of 384 posts
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#22What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.
> What is the value proposition of web3 to the user?
The same value as most other P2P software: illegal activity.
Web3 in particular is very useful for running online casinos and ponzi schemes.
Note that there is huge potential there for a ton of profit. Casinos make a ton of money.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#23What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.
you could make social media where the ad revenue is shared with the users. you can already sell art where the platform can vanish (like hicetnunc did) but the artists and users can take their assets to just another platform (like objkt).
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#24His hypthesis that p2p never paid off is not justified. P2P plays an important role in media, aka bittorent. The issue with p2p and open source in general not taking off more in the consumer space has to do with the lack of profit motives. In b2b oss is winning cause businesses care a lot about costs and control. in b2c, this isn’t a concern and thus we need to figure out how to pay the p2p workers and developers for work. aka web3
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#25What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.
Honest question: Is there something specific about TikTok technology/usage pattern paving the way for distopy acceptance or it's just the same concept of facebook/instagram/Twitter but with a younger audience?
I have noticed a cultural difference between different generations of social networks. With Facebook, people usually sought out people and groups that they wanted to connect with and complained about being algorithmically profiled for ads but accepted it as part of the business model.
With TikTok, people usually express how much they love the algorithm that finds things that they like.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#26What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.
> What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? The same value as most other P2P software: illegal activity. Web3 in particular is very useful for running online casinos and ponzi schemes. Note that there is huge potential there for a ton of profit. Casinos make a ton of money.
No post body was provided.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#27What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.
web3 is not "pay for every click." value prop is disintermediation and decentralization. like purchasing a game asset, and not having it tied only to your iOS or Steam account.
[deleted]
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can point MetaMask to a different RPC endpoint or your own local node. it is like suggesting BitTorrent is centralized tech because many users download torrents on a centralized website. most NFTs (of value) are using IPFS or Arweave not a URL.
IPFS only enables decentralization, it doesn't guarantee it. I'd be willing to bet most NFT content is only pinned by the exchange.
maybe but this is still better than a centralized server URL for something that is designed to be owned by the commons. if the marketplace goes down users can just re-pin the asset. even if the asset has been completely garbage collected, if it is truly valuable (like Punks) probably at least one computer in the world will have the asset on-disk, and can just re-pin it to revive the IPFS url.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#29> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…
I don't think that's right. Using decentralized protocols doesn't necessarily imply decentralized authority or use of those protocols. Skype used to be P2P, and the mothership would still push updates to end users to ensure everyone was using the correct protocol. Decentralized protocols do create some technical challenges, but they also alleviate others (scaling, for example). Even when that's not the case, like wit…
You’re missing the forest for the trees… Skype is a corporate product run and owned by a single entity that is free to change their tech however they please. Something like email, a federated and distributed communication protocol, is incredibly slow to change because the stakeholders are numerous and the protocol is entrenched.
You point to DHT as a game changer, and yet that protocol was invented in 2005 and took over a decade to hit mainstream success and hasn’t changed much in the past decade. New protocols can be invented at any time but getting them adopted is a Herculean task with little monetary profit and updating said protocol in any innovative way is nigh impossible.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#30> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…
I still believe the P2P version of Skype was better. Centralized Skype may have more features, but the P2P version of Skype was better at the core functionality of video and audio calling. It was also more private and secure, since your calls were not routed through a central server.
The change to centralized servers was done because more and more Skype users (P2P nodes) were/are running on bandwidth and processor constrained mobile devices.
It also just so happened to align with the acquisition by Microsoft and resulting support for “lawful intercept”.