Sort of agree. My initial understanding was that web3 was essentially a P2P solution with IPFS, Federated social graphs, decentralized p2p messaging and RTC stuff, and awaiting decentralized DNS. My current understanding or impression is that it's a coin wallet in my ~browser and I have to mine shit coins via storing and computing stuff on what will certainly be FAANGs behalf.
Web3 is expensive P2P
91–100 of 384 posts
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#92Earlier 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.
> How about poniz schemes ran by governments ? You are ok with that kind of exploitation ?
I don't understand what kind of argument you were aiming at. Even if your "government ponzi scheme" non-sequitur is taken at face value, what's your point exactly? Do you expect that a type of fraud becomes acceptable if you manage to point out other types of fraud?
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#93Earlier 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…
Many apps offer you your data if you want it. For example, Facebook. I think people overestimate how useful data is outside of the application that was tailor-made to handle the data in the precise format it's in.
I guess "Web3" (it pains me to even use that term) would allow another developer to reverse-engineer an application to digest the data as it exists on the blockchain, but... that seems like a pretty negligible improvement over the status quo with many very significant drawbacks. For starters, a Raspberry Pi has orders of magnitude better performance than the "Ethereum World Computer". To make that concession, I'd hope for a much better benefit.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And who else will then operate the web3 infrastructure? Instead of the Security team at Google, their ddos service and OnCall experts we have whom now? Some miners? Perfectly written Blockchain code? You sound like those things are just free.
As a member of an open source community involved in one or more blockchain projects, I can attest that many of these things literally are indeed free.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#95Earlier 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.
You certainly can point to a local blockchain node but the question is - have you ever run your own? Running your own blockchain node is nothing like BitTorrent. The required storage, memory, cpu, and IOPS performance is already pushing the limits of readily available standard hardware. This applies mostly to Ethereum. When you go to higher throughput chains like Solana and Polygon the node requirements jump to hardw…
I believe these issues will solve over time by moore's law. By the time Web3 will be mainstream viable we will all be able to run nodes on our mobile phones.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And who else will then operate the web3 infrastructure? Instead of the Security team at Google, their ddos service and OnCall experts we have whom now? Some miners? Perfectly written Blockchain code? You sound like those things are just free.
Internet Service Providers? Hosting Providers? Literally anyone from their closet?
Google isn't the Internet, no matter how badly they want you to believe that.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#97Sort of agree. My initial understanding was that web3 was essentially a P2P solution with IPFS, Federated social graphs, decentralized p2p messaging and RTC stuff, and awaiting decentralized DNS. My current understanding or impression is that it's a coin wallet in my ~browser and I have to mine shit coins via storing and computing stuff on what will certainly be FAANGs behalf.
[deleted]
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#98What 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…
> Universal login
You can have universal login with MetaMask, sure, but that functionality isn't reliant on a blockchain. It's decades-old public key cryptography.
> Ownership in communities.... The difference is that existing platforms don't let you build on those communities outside of their walled garden
But successful internet communities do everything in their power to remain walled gardens. What could they possibly have to gain by doing this? Like what would Reddit gain by moving Reddit Gold to the blockchain?
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And who else will then operate the web3 infrastructure? Instead of the Security team at Google, their ddos service and OnCall experts we have whom now? Some miners? Perfectly written Blockchain code? You sound like those things are just free.
I'm not sure I understand your question, genuinely. There are of course costs for the benefits that come with web3: protocols are slow to evolve, and infrastructure is less efficient when we require a distributed consensus. Anyone that thinks "Web 2" or centralized systems will disappear is silly, there will always be situations where the costs of web3 are greater than the benefits. On the other hand, it's equally silly to think that there are zero use cases where the benefits of web3 outweigh the costs. Both can and will coexist.
Static HTML pages still exist today.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#100Earlier 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.)
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 (…
This feels like a tiny tiny edge case. How many developers simultaneously have the rights to an IP and have the game asset data and code, but also lack the ability to retrieve purchase data on that other game?