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

121–130 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#121

Post by ehutch79 »

eric_cc wrote: post #111
moolcool wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> what would Reddit gain I think you nailed it. It’s a victory for USERS - owning your own assets in a way that does not require you to trust the platform. It’s not so great for centralized platforms.

But it's not like you can use assets/data from one website in another, unless it's something like a jpg... in which case it's not like you can't just upload that jpg

You'd need everyone to agree to the same standard for stuff. Definitely more likely than game assets, but still incredibly unlikely

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#122

Post by agentultra »

I'll just leave this here [0]

I don't disagree that the concentration of web architecture into the hands of a small number of big corps is a bad thing. I just don't see the solution being a purely technical one. There are market forces and reasons for that consolidation: efficiency in terms of power; production, acquisition, and deployment of expensive equipment; high-availability of services, operations and staff, etc. I don't like that a third of the Internet goes down with aws-east-1 like anyone else but the factors that enabled this situation are no conspiracy.

We need economic incentives to enable smaller players to build on widely deployed infrastructure, fair competition laws, etc.

We could use more edge-computing power with low-power equipment. Make it easy to deploy small-time data-centres on low-power, off-the-shelf hardware. Incentives that align with the economic value they bring so that they're not fighting on the margins left by large monopolies.

Instead we're supposed to switch over to a "P2P" system built on funny machines evaluating user code. As many chains have tried to formally verify their smart contracts it's becoming increasing clear that the proofs, when they can be achieved, are so complex that the underlying system probably has more errors in it than we can count. Probably great for departing folks from their money but the folks running this stuff often don't even understand programming let alone proofs and verification.

And then the stuff that actually gets built with it... slow, terrible UX, that it is... is just garbage anyways. Axie? I don't think anyone in web3 actually plays the game. It looks boring as all hell. And it's incredibly expensive to get started in it. They literally pay people to play it for them and they just watch spreadsheets for number to go up.

And none of this "distributed web" works without the Internet as it exists today anyway. I'm not interested in promises of potential. We don't drive on potential bridges.

Maybe some part of the community is built by idealists but their dreams are poisoned. The world we live in right now is already pretty terrible in some parts. We could be fixing those instead of building another dystopia.

[0] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#123

Post by wahnfrieden »

dmitriid wrote: post #119
birracerveza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buz…

> Web3 should feel no different to the end user than web2 Yes, yes it would feel different. Because every action requires the user to pay.

No

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#125

Post by gentleman11 »

axg11 wrote: post #69
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…

Universal login: the third party services still need to accept your login and can still reject it. Service providers won’t vanish or decentralize, look how we got google on the open web

Composability: sounds really bad for privacy. The entire concept of a permanent public record of transactions scares me for this reason

rewarding creator communities: we already have Patreon and advertising deals. Aren’t crypto transactions relatively slow and expensive, or has that changed?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#127

Post by birracerveza »

dmitriid wrote: post #119
birracerveza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 buz…

> Web3 should feel no different to the end user than web2 Yes, yes it would feel different. Because every action requires the user to pay.

Please read my post. Take a look at orbis.club. Users are not required to pay gas for every interaction.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#128

Post by ARandumGuy »

boredumb wrote: post #91

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 has always been an attempt to rebrand blockchain stuff, and make it appear like the next step in internet technology. Some other technologies (like IPFS) have been added to the Web3 umbrella, but blockchain an cryptocurrency has always been the core of "Web3".

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#129

Post by axg11 »

enos_feedler wrote: post #117
axg11 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

The difference is there are relatively fewer static html pages. There wont be relatively fewer web2 deployments vs web3. Itll be mostly web2

I agree - misguided attempts to make everything "web3" shouldn't take away from the huge amount of value that future web3 services can bring, even if they are vastly outnumbered by web2 services forever.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#130

Post by nont »

I think the main issue I have is with the name.

3 is implied to be better and replacing 2. I'm not sure if the future we are heading to is actually that way but the name kinda led people to believe it is.

Post reply on HN