Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web3 is expensive P2P

netfuture.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#61

Post by danieldevries »

sergiomattei wrote: post #19
anonymous0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s just a low-tier generalization about newer generation. Nothing to analyze here. There is nothing about TikTok that makes my generation mindless Web3 drones.

Agreed. Just lazy analytics by using buzzwords. The TikTok generation... I'm clearly late to the party as a Millennial.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#62

Post by exyi »

can16358p wrote: post #44

Ironically I can't access the site, that probably defends against web3 (checking out the title and the comments), which is on a centralized web host, is probably hugged to death because of HN exposure and I can't access it. I can't stop thinking how things could be different if we embraced web3 and used a decentralized storage/hosting that incentivizes sharing by some form of token, solving the scaling problem while…

This use case would be better served by old-school P2P, something like bittorrent or ipfs

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#63

Post by freeone3000 »

web4 wrote: post #58
the_other wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game devs could offer transferable content without stores if they stopped using the stores (ok, admittedly, iOS makes this harder). Web3 has nothing to do with this.

it has everything to do with it: 1. you purchase digital items with centralized payment processors like VISA 2. the asset is transferred to your centralized iOS/Steam account. you do not "own" it, the company owns it. if you are banned from Steam, you lose all your games and game purchases. web3 is asking how these two things can be changed to remove the intermediary. the best frame for this is not "web3 ideals are n…

You could charge customers money, then give them a game. That could work.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#64

Post by ItsMonkk »

somezero wrote: post #41
littlestymaar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn’t need centralized certificate authorities (= Has some Sybil resistance) What link do you make between Sybil attacks and centralized authorities? And btw the only decentralized sybil resistance component to blockchain things was proof of work, which is being deprecated by most people who believe Web3 is a thing (which afaik Bitcoiners don't).

The only way to provably prevent Sybil attacks are CAs ( https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/sybil.pdf ) This is why almost all P2P and DHT papers assumed existence of a CA in their system model eg. Castro’s secure routing etc. P.S. PoS protocols are also Sybil resistance mechanisms. Look into Tendermint and compare it with, say, PBFT.

Not true.

> This paper shows that the situation with BFT CRDTs is very different from BFT consensus: it is possible to guarantee the standard CRDT consistency properties even in systems in which arbitrarily many nodes are Byzantine, e.g. where the Byzantine nodes outnumber the correct nodes. This makes the algorithms immune to Sybil attacks, allowing them to be deployed in open P2P systems that anybody can join, without requiring proof-of-work or proof of any other resource.

[0]: https://martin.kleppmann.com/papers/bft-crdt-papoc22.pdf

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#65

Post by polygamous_bat »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

What 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? ... You will up pay for every click.

But people who come after you will pay even more to you to do the same thing that you did for cheap! You are an early adopter who can just do nothing but click early all the way to becoming a millionaire! Basically a shameless ponzi is implicit in the promise.

I think in a perverse way, the pay per click dystopia is a feature and not a bug.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#66

Post by woojoo666 »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

What 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.

If you're talking about visitors to a web3 website, ideally they shouldn't be able to tell if it's web3 or not.

But I believe the value proposition is for people who have spare bandwidth/compute/storage and want to make money. Currently internet infrastructure (like AWS) is largely owned by a few corps. Web3 has the potential to let anybody join, distributing the infrastructure across individual providers like what Uber did to taxis.

Another big one is web3 social platforms like Odysee and Peertube. These are more censorship resistant because they are decentralized.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#67

Post by freeone3000 »

diego_moita wrote: post #38

Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

People were fine "running their own servers" back when Skype was peer-to-peer. Or when Team Fortress 2 let you play with your friends.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#68

Post by bogwog »

> The Web3 community approaches this from the opposite side: Instead of a lightweight communistic take, they follow a heavyweight libertarian path: Everything should be monetized.

This is how you get people to stop reading your article, and to instantly agree or disagree with you (regardless of what you're saying) based only on the political language you used.

I'm not a politician, and I make an active effort to avoid politics on the internet. However, even I know that this is tone deaf. If this article was written only for people with above average reading comprehension skills (which is not this site's demographic), then that's fine. But if this was written for the masses, i.e. the typical victims of crypto scams, then it's just completely tone deaf and ineffective. "Communist" and "libertarian" are trigger words for a significant portion of Americans.

For example, I know that if my father was reading through this article, he wouldn't understand any of the technical stuff, but he'd associate the word "communist" with "things that aren't Web3", and then enthusiastically start going down Tiktok/Youtube/Facebook Web3 rabbit holes, just to stick it to those damned commies.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#69

Post by axg11 »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

What 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.

Some benefits that I think web3 can bring to the user:

- Universal login: An alternative to "Sign in with Google/Apple/XYZ" that can't be denied by a corporation. There are countless examples of these companies deactivating accounts for questionable reasons.

- Permissionless composability: I'm not sure how to word this one better. If a developer wants to build on top of blockchain data, they can. No need to apply for API access, rate limits, etc. Not all data should be open/on a blockchain, but in the cases where it's appropriate this is a fantastic benefit.

- Ownership in communities: tokens (fungible or non-fungible) can represent ownership for communities. The next Reddit will reward its community and contributors. This isn't an unusual concept. YouTube and TikTok already reward their creator communities. The difference is that existing platforms don't let you build on those communities outside of their walled garden.

For balance, here are two concepts/terms I see co-mentioned with web3 that I believe are bullshit:

- Metaverse: I don't think this will come to anything. We're already living in the metaverse. We have online identities (yours is mouzogu!). I refuse to spend a significant portion of my life in VR or another 3D game.

- Micropayments: Consumers don't want the mental overhead of figuring out value for money every time they consume content.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#70

Post by [deleted] »

bpeebles wrote: post #32
web4 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just as easy for a game developer to say "eh we're no longer using that blockchain for game assets" or otherwise make your "purchase" (which isn't really a purchase) unusable with a blockchain based solution as it is with current Steam/iOS-based systems. (Probably easier, really.)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN