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

261–270 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#261

Post by salawat »

anamax wrote: post #225
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…

> Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. It's my understanding that "phone" without the ability to tap is illegal in the US. IIRC, the "must be able to let the govt listen" requirement occurred at the same time as Skpye switched models and the requirement was given as the reason for said switch.

That applies only for Common Carriers.

Skype is not Common Carrier. It's an Internet Service which ISP's have been deadset on avoiding getting classified as covered under Common Carrier obligations because it would entail, according to them, enormous harm to the profitability of the sector due to the cost of increased regulatory compliance".

Telco's/Telephony must provide pen register/tap capability. Internet services as of yet need not. Until you become big enough for Federal LE to start harassing.

The relevant regulation in question is CALEA.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#262

Post by xyzzyz »

anamax wrote: post #225
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…

> Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. It's my understanding that "phone" without the ability to tap is illegal in the US. IIRC, the "must be able to let the govt listen" requirement occurred at the same time as Skpye switched models and the requirement was given as the reason for said switch.

It might be some sort of opaque incentive where gov goons tell you they’ll make life difficult for you if you don’t comply, but I certainly have not ever seen this being an open requirement. Signal still exists, for example.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#263

Post by giantrobot »

thesausageking wrote: post #240
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…

> This is what web3 is trying to get back to.

No, it's trying to extract money out of clients for every transaction they perform. Moreover it requires all users buy into the cryptocurrency Ponzi to participate in that rent extraction. So you trade real money for Geoffrey dollars in order to pay money to read a fucking tweet.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#264

Post by dmitriid »

douglaswlance wrote: post #55
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.

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.

> Data portability is a huge value prop: Everywhere you sign-in, you already have all of your data.

No. No you don't.

1. Below you claim that "Only you (or anyone who has access to your private key) can access your data."

So when you sign in somewhere, that "web3" app still has no access to your data

2. Just the fact that you have your data does not mean it's portable.

A proprietary binary blob created by app1 will not be readable or accessible through app2.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#265

Post by rglullis »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #257
rglullis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, for one, they're the prime use-case for this sort of thing because they have the resources. None of these podunk little developers is going to "disrupt" the market with blockchain assets, because of ALL the developers and studios, they're the LEAST capable of designing and testing assets that did not come from their studio. "Hey Jim, we have a hotfix we need you to work on." "No time for that, Bob, XYZ Gamecorp…

They will not disrupt with the assets. They will disrupt it with the new game engines, and they are already backed by billions from VCs and the money from NFT speculators.

There is a reason that Valve is not too fond of crypto, and it is not "climate change".

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#266

Post by kristjansson »

rglullis wrote: post #228
kristjansson wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. The blockchain is not a data store. The blockchain is needed only when you need: - global view of the state that is taken as truth by all participants ( consensus ) - where anyone is allowed to make operations to change the state ( permissionless ) - and all operations that change the state are agreed by all participants ( trustless ) You don't need the blockchain to store your music collection. Any content-addre…

I actually agree with all of that. I don't agree that storing that sort of data on the blockchain supports statements like "the users are in control of their own data". You're make a distinction between assets/content/etc. and 'data' that I don't think most users would recognize as a difference. If I make a playlist on decentralized-Spotify, and then that service goes bust, it's weak comfort that I'm able to move a list of song-hashes unless I (or another service I can move to) have access to the corresponding content. I can only exert as much control over my data as I over the off-chain content store[1].

What categories of data do you see that (a) average users care about and (b) would want to control beyond the life of a service provider but (c) doesn't depend on the availability of assets/contents/etc. cannot be viably stored on-chain?

[1]: Sure, FileCoin and dependent services offer some control and guarantees over off-chain data I guess.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#267

Post by MrMan »

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…

I like the distributed ID stuff and think its good or at least has potential.

permissionless computing is also fine, but I think payments need to be somehow decoupled from this. endless ocean of tokens is stupid. we need some kind of distributed payment gateway built into the internet where you can use any currency on a list of supported currencies, and none should be supported that are "bad" ie planet killing POW.

tokenization I think is a dead end

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#268

Post by Animats »

Where is Web3 P2P? Decentraland is centralized. The Sandbox is centralized. OpenSea is centralized. Metamask is centralized. Bitcoin and Etherium mining depend on big server farms that are more centralized than Akamai.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#269

Post by rvbissell »

thawaya3113 wrote: post #260
roywiggins wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is exactly what’s happening with crypto. A user’s transaction on Coinbase rarely represents an actual transaction on the blockchain. A transaction actually represents a row in a Coinbase SQL database, which Coinbase will eventually batch and then convert into a blockchain operation.

So... a dark pool? Oy vey.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#270

Post by leifg »

Animats wrote: post #268

Where is Web3 P2P? Decentraland is centralized. The Sandbox is centralized. OpenSea is centralized. Metamask is centralized. Bitcoin and Etherium mining depend on big server farms that are more centralized than Akamai.

All of that is true.

But even if web3 was 100% decentralized it still would be an expensive inefficient P2P.

Post reply on HN