The only legitimate use for web3 that I’ve seen is a way to establish trust with strangers before you run arbitrary software on their computers. It’s like a really expensive replacement for AWS. Are there any other cases similar to this and do you think it could ever be cost effective?
Web3 is expensive P2P
151–160 of 384 posts
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#152Earlier 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…
> You can have universal login with MetaMask, sure, but that functionality isn't reliant on a blockchain. It's decades-old public key cryptography. For sure, you can do PGP, but if it's decades old, you have to ask yourself: Why hasn't public key cryptography taken off as a sign in solution in the same way that email or Google or Facebook have been? Mainly because it's always been a chicken and egg problem for consum…
> Why hasn't public key cryptography taken off as a sign in solution in the same way that email or Google or Facebook have been?
Because people haven't been financially motivated to evangelize it.
I believe that's the core of blockchain/web3 innovations. It's a worse way to do it, but the social hype (driven almost entirely by get rich FOMO) is enough to push it over the edge.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#153I'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, e…
I hadn't seen Axie before, but I have seen a few other blockchain games. They seem to suffer the same pitfalls as the whole gamification trend that went around a few years ago, in that the game part feels tacked on, which of course completely misses the point.
I have no doubt a good game could be built around the blockchain, as are my thoughts on gamification for fitness or whatever else, but the game has to come first.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#154Earlier 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…
> You can have universal login with MetaMask, sure, but that functionality isn't reliant on a blockchain. It's decades-old public key cryptography. For sure, you can do PGP, but if it's decades old, you have to ask yourself: Why hasn't public key cryptography taken off as a sign in solution in the same way that email or Google or Facebook have been? Mainly because it's always been a chicken and egg problem for consum…
Okay, but the login bit for MetaMask is "just" using public key cryptography though, right? You could strip out the blockchain stuff from MetaMask and that part would still work.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#155What 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.
Story time. About 20 years ago, when dialup was introduced where I grew up, my uncle called me to show him what this new internet thing is. As soon as I opened "yahoo.com", he asked "how am I paying to view Yahoo?". I said you're not paying anybody, you're just paying for the Internet connection. He nodded. I then showed him Hotmail. He kept asking "ok so now, how did they charge me to view this page?". I kept tellin…
> In many ways, that's the lense through which I look at web3. It might be too late to switch to a pay as you go system.
In that regard, web3 is a solution looking for a problem.
Companies like Medium, Udemy, Spotify, Netflix, LinkedIn, etc already offer users pay-as-you-go services for higher-value content, and none of them required so many buzzword-driven technologies to pull it off.
Heck, even Amazon offers pay-as-you-go access to books.
Exactly what does web3 bring to the table?
> It might be too late to educate people about the importance of staying anonymous and preserving their user data.
Again, exactly what does web3 bring to the table with regards to privacy and "preserving user data"? Those examples seem too vague to have any meaning beyond scaremongering.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#156What Web3 should be is a) identity, and b) digital payment. I am of the opinion that the state should provide digital identity service. Estonia is a good example, from what I've heard, of a state that is doing this effectively. As for digital payment, Brazil seems to be in the lead now with Pix. I see no valid role for private companies nor blockchains in providing digital ID and currency services.
> I am of the opinion that the state should provide digital identity service No thanks. Privacy is a human right.
I agree, and I would go further: Identity is a human right, and it is not to be seen as a privilege granted by governments, nor should we ever give governments the power to revoke people's identities, or require people to "earn" them.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#157What 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? 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.
p2p is great and has some excellent use cases. We used it on a previous project to download 100+GB patches onto dozens of PCs in a trusted environment using a 100(?)mbps external connection in a couple of minutes.
Torrents are also an incredible piece of technology, allowing tamper resistant distribution of files from untrusted parties - imagine how much value Linux distros glean from being hosted by third parties who voluntarily do so without needing to "partner up"?
I don't disagree that the _primary_ use case is piracy though (and I've yet to see any genuine use cases for web3 suggested either)
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#158What 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 buz…
> That's not web3.
This sentence is emblematic of the major problem with discussions of "web3" right now. There are dozens of different definitions of web3 that all conflict with each other in one way or another; the only thing people seem to agree on is that web3 involves blockchain somehow. With so many different versions, it's hard to have a conversation because any criticism invariably ends up with people jumping in with "well, that's not really web3!"
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Welcome to the internet.
1. Claim that X is the same as Y.
2. Assert that Y is Bad.
3. Therefore, X is Good. QED.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#160What 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.
The theory is that people are incentivized to contribute to the p2p ecosystem. Unfortunately, the visionaries behind it probably didn’t predict that the user base (and therefore the next generations of developers) would be dominated by scammers and charlatans. Most of those projects didn’t even become decentralized, having a heavy UI on top of a thin blockchain.
I think the original vision might be possible to pull off if redesigned to ward against that sort of thing. Successfully rebranding it would be one of the harder problems I would imagine.