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

281–290 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#281

Post by oblak »

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #277
masklinn wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>Unless you're one of those americans for whom "communist" reflexively aliases to "bad" it's usually people who had actually lived under communism who have that reaction

Not even remotely in the same canned way that feels like mindless parroting myths about "communism". Seen it so many times.

Yeah, I have lived under communist rule. That's not the reason I can easily spot such nonsense but it certainly helps a bit.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#282

Post by epicide »

exdsq wrote: post #275
bodge5000 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fir…

FWIW I quite liked the trading card games on Blockchain because you could sell cards you didn't want, buy those you did, and packs became like 'real life' in that you could get a really cool legendary and make some money (just like Pokemon/YuGiOh, but that you lose in games like Hearthstone where you just convert them into some in game currency). I've commented on this before and people have said "Oh, why does everyt…

What does being on a blockchain get you in a digital TCG that a centralized server can't?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#283

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

sleepybrett wrote: post #220
Asooka wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say that P2P never became mainstream. BitTorrent is still huge and a great way to share media with each other. The reason it's not mainstream is because without centralisation, you can't enforce copyright and DRM. If sharing movies with friends was legal, P2P platforms would sprout like mushrooms after rain. I personally think, perhaps foolishly, that if we decriminalise nonprofit filesharing and at the sa…

Most bittorrent traffic is bootstrapped by centralized trackers.

Bootstrapping doesn't make them not P2P though. It's an unfortunately necessary piece of infrastructure for peer discovery.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#284

Post by qabqabaca »

paulmd wrote: post #243
lekevicius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure! Until we can figure out how to make global consensus ridiculously scalable, I don't see "web3 social" being successful at all. It's using a very expensive resource for a frivolous need.

"web3 social" will never be successful because censorship is a desirable feature of a social-media platform. If there is no way to censor a group of people, there is no way to censor spammers either. You will be able to filter at the client level of course, or set up maintained filter-lists (which will be trivial to game with a "sybil" approach), but this is going to be "running an email server" times a million in te…

I think the main reason it won't be successful is because people simply don't care about decentralization/privacy. Historically, there have only been a handful of successful social media companies. Starting a new one with the key differentiator being decentralization, while also adding the onboarding friction of crypto wallet management, is essentially a guarantee of failure. Mastodon tried this, without the unnecessary wallet friction, and is still an extremely niche platform.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#285

Post by dropnerd »

dwaite wrote: post #184
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…

> 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? For the same reason a Metamask extension to do so won't take off outside of specialized applications. Since users have not yet authenticated, this is part of a conversation process of potential users to registered,…

chrome will never have a "login with pgp" function

brave already supports "login with ethereum"

adoption matters

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#286

Post by adbachman »

rglullis wrote: post #234
wollsmoth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 futur…

You named two examples that only make sense in a centralized platform world.

FIFA licensing will always be a thing and collecting and selling WoW gear / accounts only worked because other people wanted to play WoW that badly. Both work because they're tied to a platform, not in spite of being tied to a platform.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#287

Post by marricks »

xyzzyz wrote: post #262
anamax wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I mean, look what happened to Qwest. It’s totally believable.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#288

Post by adbachman »

rglullis wrote: post #265
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> There is a reason that Valve is not too fond of crypto

Because, like with third party Counter-Strike knife skin sites, it always devolves into money laundering and illegal gambling.

Only in an ecosystem like cryptocurrency that exists for those purposes does it make sense.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#289

Post by jl6 »

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…

> How about an open royalty standard for selling in-game music as part of an indie racing game (and by purchasing the in-game music, I get a portable copy that can be integrated in any application)?

That’s a cool idea but I’ve no idea why you would need a blockchain to achieve it.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#290

Post by Animats »

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. But often it's simply overkill.

P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

Post reply on HN