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

231–240 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#231

Post by trenchgun »

axg11 wrote: post #110
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…

> 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 a…

>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.

That could easily be done with plain old public key cryptography.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#232

Post by giantrobot »

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…

> that can't be denied by a corporation

Every service that might use blockchain based authentication will implement allow lists. As everyone in the history of the Internet has learned trolls and spammers will ruin services. So some sort of unblockable universal login is an impractical fantasy.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#233

Post by somezero »

ItsMonkk wrote: post #217
somezero wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying his paper is wrong or not up to the workshop quality. But he’s saying something against an easy-to-prove impossibility theorem in a seriously sloppy/hand-wavy way. I trust Doceur and the entire early 2000s literature more than his paper. But who knows, I might be wrong. P.S. Also commented about the paper here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30561786

His more recent paper on the move operation[0] goes into some of the details further and while I don't fully understand it myself, the claims he makes along with the proof assistant nature he uses to work through them are fairly compelling. The simple intuition is that because his CRDT's are associative and everyone else is not using associative data types, he simplifies the space and the impossible becomes possible.…

Thanks! I’ll definitely take a look. These works are valuable but my problem is just with that particular claim about CAs.

1. This impossibility theorem is proved in a really broad setting (assuming a “broadcast communication cloud” and a P2P channel). If he wants to circumvent the impossibility theorem he should clearly specify the system model and say how it differs from Doceur’s. There are other instances where by playing with the model you go around an impossibility theorem, but you have to specify the differences. Especially since this theorem is so well known/cited.

2. Some claims in the old paper are just plain wrong. Like, you can’t say it’s Sybil resistant just because it tolerates arbitrary number of Byzantine nodes. Dolev-Strong also needs just one honest party, but it requires a CA.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#234

Post by rglullis »

wollsmoth wrote: post #73
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…

This doesn't make any sense to me. The blockchain just says you own a thing, it might even have some data about the thing. But what are you going to do with it? If the game company decides to shut down their game, what do you actually do with a digital hat you bought on the blockchain? Oh, yeah, maybe someone else will make another game and do the work to support a digital hat you bought from someone else. Maybe it'l…

Substitute "digital hats" for "exclusive contract with the star player on FIFA Football Manager", or "a mine that produces unobtanium on a blockchain version of minecraft"

And yes, I am not much of a gamer so these examples might sound super silly today. But 25 years ago the idea of people making a living by collecting and selling items on WoW would also be met with general skepticism, so we never know what the future holds.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#235

Post by MisterBastahrd »

damon_c wrote: post #103
DanHulton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But in the real world, companies have to build and test assets. Blockchains are ledgers, and NFTs are receipts: they're far too expensive to hold a lot of data. They're never going to hold game assets.

If you want to say that Activision or Square-Enix come up with a tokenized platform for their own assets, which you can then use in other future games, that's marginally interesting. But Activision isn't going to care one bit about creating tokenized assets that players from Square bought on Square's platform. There's no money there.

Furthermore, players play for assets all the time in order to show off. When you start flooding the market with items so that players have cool stuff from day 1, you create a disincentive for them to push through and acquire these other items.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#236

Post by doubtfuluser »

As an EU citizen, I’m wondering how things like the “right to be forgotten” would work on this? How can we remove personal information in web3?

I’m still new to the topic so I guess there are some easy solutions already…

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#237

Post by douglaswlance »

APock wrote: post #84
douglaswlance wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data portability is a huge value prop: Everywhere you sign-in, you already have all of your data. Is it bad to pay to click, if you earn more from the ads on the page? Along with micro-payments, you also micro-earn.

So, being FULLY tracked by every website ever, on every device at the same time, since all your data is whatever wallet you use across devices anyway, is now a good thing?

Only you (or anyone who has access to your private key) can access your data.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#238

Post by rglullis »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #235
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 in the real world, companies have to build and test assets. Blockchains are ledgers, and NFTs are receipts: they're far too expensive to hold a lot of data. They're never going to hold game assets. If you want to say that Activision or Square-Enix come up with a tokenized platform for their own assets, which you can then use in other future games, that's marginally interesting. But Activision isn't going to care…

Who cares about Activision or Square-Enix? It's not going to be Activision that is going to build the blockchain-powered generation of gaming platforms. It's going to be one of the many small dev teams that wants to find a way to disrupt the market.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#239

Post by danamit »

p2p cannot save a state that the whole network agree upon, that's the point of Web3, that's what it is solving. What a waste of articles?

You CANNOT have distributed apps with old p2p file sharing.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#240

Post by thesausageking »

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.

Tiktok is the opposite of web3. It's a centralized service, run by a Chinese company, that collects loads of data about users and which controls the network. If they decide they want to ban your account they can. If you want to take your username and data to another network, it's very hard to do.

Networks should function more like domains and email. If you own "mouzugo.com", you can use Gmail for email. If you decide you'd rather switch to Fastmail, you can migrate without a problem. It's all enabled by open standards and interoperability.

This is what web3 is trying to get back to.

Post reply on HN