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

71–80 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#71

Post by pie_flavor »

I disagree with the article strongly, but still find the comparison very thought-provoking and useful. There are odd parallels there, right down to the early adopters of the former being the regulars of the latter.

What the author identifies as the weaknesses of web3, though, are actually just the weaknesses of Ethereum. They're very good reasons why Ethereum will not be the future of the internet - but chains that are being developed to replace it[0] solve all of those problems and then some.

[0]: https://smartcontracts.org

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#72

Post by mpeg »

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.)

You're missing the point, the game developer obviously has to buy into the ecosystem, but the difference is with the current status quo in-app purchases are not really owned by the customers, so even if another game developer wanted to honour their purchases there is no way to interop.

Web3 is a pretty good use case for this, and the transaction costs barely add anything if you compare to the cut the platform takes (Apple takes 30%) so the game publisher could easily swallow this extra cost too (which could be tiny)

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#73

Post by wollsmoth »

rglullis wrote: post #49
bpeebles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It's not about "game assets". It's a about having disintermediated access to the state of the "world". Think of all the stories of startups that offer a product that locks their users and then go to be acquired/shut down by some other bigger company. If the services and the data live on the blockchain, it's guaranteed by design that the users are in control of their own data (no lock in) and that if the company just…

This doesn't make any sense to me. The blockchain just says you own a thing, it might even have some data about the thing. But what are you going to do with it? If the game company decides to shut down their game, what do you actually do with a digital hat you bought on the blockchain?

Oh, yeah, maybe someone else will make another game and do the work to support a digital hat you bought from someone else. Maybe it'll happen in a bid to try to scoop up users of a dead game. Or maybe, they'll just make their own digital hats and sell you a new one.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#74

Post by mpeg »

freeone3000 wrote: post #67
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.

People are also fine running their own Discord servers, just like they did IRC channels/networks back in the day.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#75

Post by rvz »

anonymous0 wrote: post #15
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.

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?

You will hear testimonials of most TikTok users addicted to and sniffing the digital crack / cocaine on the platform praising the super dystopian algorithm that operates on their viewing activity and collects minute data-points to keep them glued and addicted to the platform and screen time.

Then you will get something like this [0], and folks [1] on the kool-aid with nonsensical claims like 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet' at the height of the euphoria.

In reality, it is both the same concepts of the other social networks but much worse and [0] has shown that its algorithm was more dystopian than previously thought.

Therefore, it is the nadir of social media.

[0] https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/xl/tiktok-doesn_t-show-the-wa...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#76

Post by evan_ »

bogwog wrote: post #68

> 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 avoi…

If your father will knee jerk turn against something just because some random article called it communist- that’s not really a problem with the article.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#77

Post by APock »

przeor wrote: post #26
lalaland1125 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

The ponzi schemes ran by governments are ultimately run as a benefit to your retirement, and most importantly, you can overthrow a government.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#78

Post by birracerveza »

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.

That's not web3. Web3 should feel no different to the end user than web2, except for the fact they "sign in" via their wallet (Metamask) instead of legacy login mechanisms (Username+password or Google/FB sign ins).

Users shouldn't even pay for gas. Look at orbis.club for an early example of proper web3.

What we saw up until now is not "true" web3, but simply web2 masquerading as such and using web3 as a marketing buzzword.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#79

Post by Asooka »

andsoitis wrote: post #3

> 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 wouldn't say that P2P never became mainstream. BitTorrent is still huge and a great way to share media with each other. The reason it's not mainstream is because without centralisation, you can't enforce copyright and DRM. If sharing movies with friends was legal, P2P platforms would sprout like mushrooms after rain.

I personally think, perhaps foolishly, that if we decriminalise nonprofit filesharing and at the same time make supporting creators easy and not tied to buying the media, we would have a better system in place. I would love to see some of the smaller creators on Patreon experiment with giving every Patron a transferrable license to reproduce their work, as long as attribution is given.

I base my assumption on the fact that piracy has been a constant presence for the last 20 years and the entertainment industry doesn't seem to have suffered one bit. In fact every time they try to kill piracy all they end up getting is negative PR.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#80

Post by WanderPanda »

freeone3000 wrote: post #67
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.

Wait, Skype ain't p2p anymore?
Post reply on HN