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

201–210 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#201

Post by dmitriid »

birracerveza wrote: post #127
dmitriid wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Storing content on the blockchain is prohibitively expensive. So "web3" is either using centralized non-blockchain solutions, or users will pay for it.

Running "smart" "contracts" which underpin "web3" is not free.

So yeah. If users only consume content, then web3 can be free for those users I guess.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#202

Post by remram »

masklinn wrote: post #199
jillesvangurp wrote: post #146

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. I can make video calls with meets, facebook, whatsapp, signal, slack, etc. Not a big deal. I even still have Skype somewhere and it still works even though they ripped out the p2p bits ages ago. I'm not sure what web3 is o…

> Nothing wrong with p2p. The article doesn't imply (let alone say) that there's anything wrong with p2p? To the extent that it says anything positive about p2p, it's rather positive. Unless you're one of those americans for whom "communist" reflexively aliases to "bad" I guess?

>> Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill.

> you're one of those americans for whom "communist" ...

The GP is making some comment about the technical merits of P2P which segues naturally from the article. You can agree, you can disagree, but I really don't know what just did.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#203

Post by hnaccount141 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #134
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…

> 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…

> This will be proven to be false in the long run. This was the same argument against Linux back in the day vs. Windows. The bazaar will win against the cathedral in the end.

Linux is still sitting at ~2% desktop market share compared to 90% for macOS+Windows. I'd hardly call that a win for the bazaar.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#204

Post by arinlen »

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.

> 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.

What does "owning your own assets" really mean, with regards to services such as Reddit, and where exactly do you see any problem worth fixing?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#205

Post by pshc »

maccard wrote: post #162
vmception wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Faster to accept payment? How is it easier for me to accept payment in eth and use it to pay my energy bill than it is to set up stripe? Also, you claim a better path to getting payment? What is better about it? As far as I can see either I trust a third party to act as an intermediate to save in gas tax, or I charge multiple dollars to verify payment "immediately" - i.e. anytime in the next few hours if imlucky, dep…

OP might be living in the future a bit, because yeah, fees are still too high right now, and there's too much friction. For now.

But in principle I agree. If you have a wallet set up and are used to using it, it's pretty quick and easy, and the money settles faster than ACH in the US which take at least a day if not 3-5? Although in Canada settlement with Interac is almost instant, maybe 3 minutes to an hour.

Setting up Stripe is something you can only do with approval from the authorities, though, so e.g. sex workers can't use it.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#206

Post by roywiggins »

phamilton wrote: post #152
chrisco255 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The most efficient way to do it would be to bootstrap the ecosystem with blockchain buzziness and then just deprecate the blockchain part eventually. MetaMask already relies on "Web2" apis to query blockchains, who says they have to actually hit a blockchain all the time?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#207

Post by kristjansson »

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…

Great! I have 132GB of photos, and would like to store them on the blockchain to ensure I always have access to them. How much will that cost me? Show your work, and round your answer to the nearest million.

Maybe too much snark, but there’s a real tension there. “Store it on the blockchain” means “store a copy on every single node, forever”. It’s understandable that incurs some costs, and that one has to store only the most essential information. Maybe, there are some paths forward, like sharded chains?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#208

Post by rglullis »

creeble wrote: post #148
damon_c wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then... what’s the incentive to build a platform? This is the part I don’t get. Use web3 to build your game, but you own no users. I get the value prop for users (in theory), but what is the value prop for developers?

> you own no users.

There used to be a time where people made money by providing actual products and services, not by locking users into a platform and exploiting them.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#209

Post by the_snooze »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #189
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.

The value proposition is the ability to share content without restriction or censorship, and own your data rather than being locked in a walled garden.

Those conditions are perfect if you want a system to get overrun with spam and scams.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#210

Post by arinlen »

chrisco255 wrote: post #142
ehutch79 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course you could. Just carrying your identity (even an anon one) between applications alone can be useful. How can I follow the same people on Twitter and Reddit and Discord and Playstation Network? Currently all this is difficult, awkward, etc with the current fragmentation in the market. Meanwhile, any digital content or rights can be represented by an NFT. Is it useful to own the commercial rights to use a pop…

> Of course you could. Just carrying your identity (even an anon one) between applications alone can be useful.

You already have that without requiring any buzzword-driven marketingspeak.

And if your goal is to stay anonymous, in the very least you'd be using independent dedicated identities in separate services.

Post reply on HN