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

101–110 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#101

Post by bsedlm »

Feriti wrote: post #89
axg11 wrote: post #69

Earlier 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.

have you considered how (not "why?") was google able to give away one gigabyte of email storage to anybody before 2010s?

that was not free either... what I'm trying to get at (and not very eloquently) is that a lot of that work is done by the computers. also, something about how the code is written once and then used by everybody at the same time. sure, writting the code may be expensive at first.

dunno, I doubt better written words will get you to agree with (or see) whatever it is I'm trying to get at.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#103

Post by damon_c »

DanHulton wrote: post #57
rglullis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All of these games run on centralized servers, though. You can "own" whatever assets you want on the blockchain, when that server goes down, they stop having any use at all.

Games run in many different contexts. The difference is that instead of your game state/achievements/assets being controlled by a balkanized industry of competitors seeking to lock you into their platforms, it could be stored publicly on a blockchain and available to you regardless of platform.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#105

Post by fami-com »

WanderPanda wrote: post #80
freeone3000 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hasn't been for almost a decade at this point. The p2p protocol was deprecated in mid-2014.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#106

Post by Feriti »

bsedlm wrote: post #101
Feriti wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

have you considered how (not "why?") was google able to give away one gigabyte of email storage to anybody before 2010s? that was not free either... what I'm trying to get at (and not very eloquently) is that a lot of that work is done by the computers. also, something about how the code is written once and then used by everybody at the same time. sure, writting the code may be expensive at first. dunno, I doubt bett…

I follow plenty of things Google as a company just does due to the money they have.

Undersee cables for example.

Project Zero.

Secure by default.

2FA.

Google even gives you now the option of configuring your ads.

Realistically speaking some entity with a monetary motivation is solving hard problems for us.

Who will solve this issue in web3 and with what motivation?

If it is monetary (as it will be) do I now should start trusting the etherium company instead of Google?

Or should I start trusting 1000 small companies than Google?

I'm quite happy what Google does and I don't know all of those other potential companies.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#107

Post by vmception »

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.

Its very developer friendly

Now we don’t have to pay for any costs (maaaaybe a smart contract deployment once) and the users can’t help themselves from interacting

Compared to web 2 marketing funnels, this is a one click funnel where every click is a payment. (Every click doesnt have to be a payment, users dont currently care)

Thats a great value proposition

Cheaper to operate, faster to accept payment, better path to getting payment. Pick all three.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#108

Post by vmception »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #65
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 an…

Depends more on transaction fees then the base currency used

If people pay to use that network and that increases, means alot of people are

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#109

Post by plsbenice34 »

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.

>You will up pay for every click

Much less dystopian to me to pay rather than indirectly pay by being a data mining product and selling my mental real estate.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#110

Post by axg11 »

moolcool wrote: post #98
axg11 wrote: post #69

Earlier 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…

> 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 poss…

> 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?

We have to reimagine everything, I don't think a successful web3 platform will emerge from simply tacking on tokens to existing platforms. Successful internet communities become walled gardens to protect against competition, but they're limiting the growth of their community members and I believe the platforms themselves could capture more value. A creator on TikTok today can't easily give their most loyal followers discounts on their Shopify store, perks for moderating a Discord, early access to YouTube content, etc.

Post reply on HN