Web3 is expensive P2P • Hacker News Board

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#311

Post by warkdarrior » Mon, May 16, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

username923409 wrote: post #300

Kwpolska wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, it might be more feasible. But is it really necessary? What actual benefits to users could more P2P bring?

Reliability could be improved if all required functionality is P2P, as the program would not need to rely on a third party server. Of course, this assumes that the party/parties on the other end of the P2P connection are online, which is the downside of all P2P services. Another underrated benefit of P2P (if implemented in good faith) is that the users will have peace of mind with regards to the ownership of their da…

> if implemented in good faith ... users will have peace of mind with regards to the ownership of their data

Famous last words! Not sure how users will establish the trustworthiness of P2P protocols (and there will be many competing versions), when now they cannot determine the trustworthiness of one service.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#312

Post by wollsmoth » Mon, May 16, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #302

adbachman wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's amazing how unimaginative people are when they are biased against the innovation. The examples I gave were only to bring an analogy. Of course the next version of FIFA FM won't be licensed by FIFA. We are talking about a world without intermediaries . Star players would themselves be creating blockchain avatars that could be tied to their real-world performance. Fantasy Sports already exist, web3 just removes mi…

...What? Why wouldn't the next version of FIFA be licensed by FIFA?

I guess I don't really know what you're suggesting. As it is, people gotta get a new Madden game every year just to update stats. This isn't because of some kind of technical limitation afaik. EA just wants to sell a new game every year. In fact, I think they might have to buy the data and the right to use it from the league.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#313

Post by ericxtang » Mon, May 16, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

The underlying technology of Web3 (distributed consensus building) is quite different from that of p2p (networking and information sharing).

While some of the criticisms of web3 are true, most of them are situations caused by the early phase we are in. Moxie's post surfaces the need for better decentralized infrastructure. The hyper financialization (everything is monetized) is caused by lack of identity solution and limited blockspace in L1 chains. These things are being built now, and will come online in the next few years. Transaction fees will become cheaper, applications will be more decentralized.

The core innovation is digital scarcity and crypto-enabled data ownership. For the first time in history, we can represent value without a middle-man. This completely changes the power dynamic of platforms vs. users, and makes value creation digital-native. Web3 has an opportunity to address some of the biggest problems with today's internet services like surveillance capitalism and censorship.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#314

Post by yurishimo » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

enos_feedler wrote: post #305

Animats wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i do think this trend is happening and will unlock some use cases. Not sure about P2P though. One reason I switched to home 5G is because i can get 40 mbps up for $25, where I needed to pay $100 to comcast for similar up speed. My main use case is streaming my playstation 4 remotely so I can play on the go.

Are you in the US? If so, who is your provider?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#315

Post by dropnerd » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

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.

transacting nfts can happen on multiple platforms, and do. looksrare, dxdy, nfttrader, etc.

now try that with your steam game.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#316

Post by warkdarrior » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:15 PM UTC

jyturley wrote: post #301

Bajeezus wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Will the government ever allow something like that?" It's not that they won't allow it, its that its largely useless. The dollar is fungible. Who cares if a dollar spent on a new M1 Abrams was "your dollar", its identical to everyone else's dollar, so everyone else's dollar could have substituted yours. What benefit would knowing that possibly provide?

OP is not talking about fungibility, but accountability. Web3 technology can provide transparency to see and verify that money is allocated in all the ways the entity said it would.

Transparency of the blockchain is only a temporary flaw. Better solutions exist (Monero, Zcash) or are being actively developed (Zk Rollups).

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#317

Post by rglullis » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

wollsmoth wrote: post #312

rglullis wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how unimaginative people are when they are biased against the innovation. The examples I gave were only to bring an analogy. Of course the next version of FIFA FM won't be licensed by FIFA. We are talking about a world without intermediaries . Star players would themselves be creating blockchain avatars that could be tied to their real-world performance. Fantasy Sports already exist, web3 just removes mi…

...What? Why wouldn't the next version of FIFA be licensed by FIFA? I guess I don't really know what you're suggesting. As it is, people gotta get a new Madden game every year just to update stats. This isn't because of some kind of technical limitation afaik. EA just wants to sell a new game every year. In fact, I think they might have to buy the data and the right to use it from the league.

FIFA has a primary institutional function: to coordinate the activities of all professional sport clubs in a way that is in the best interest of every one participating.

So, all types of decision making power were given to FIFA because the clubs thought it would be better to negotiate as a group for broadcast rights or game licensing fees.

The thing is, this type of coordination does not require an all-encompassing central entity anymore. You can see that in Europe already with the top teams from different countries trying to create the "Superleague", completely aside from the FIFA/UEFA-backed leagues.

In Brazil, there has been some years already that the most popular clubs decided to break away from the national association and went on to negotiate broadcasting rights individually. Lo and behold, they are making more money than if they went the "unionized" route.

When people want to play a football game, they don't care about it being FIFA. They care about seeing their favorite clubs and their favorite players. If we have the technology that allows clubs and players to negotiate their image rights directly with game publishers, who needs FIFA?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#318

Post by Barrin92 » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:35 PM UTC

jyturley wrote: post #301

Bajeezus wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Will the government ever allow something like that?" It's not that they won't allow it, its that its largely useless. The dollar is fungible. Who cares if a dollar spent on a new M1 Abrams was "your dollar", its identical to everyone else's dollar, so everyone else's dollar could have substituted yours. What benefit would knowing that possibly provide?

OP is not talking about fungibility, but accountability. Web3 technology can provide transparency to see and verify that money is allocated in all the ways the entity said it would.

that transparency at best tells you what wallet received what funds, whoever owns or trades that wallet or what happens with resources in the real world using those funds is outside of the scope of web3 technology or for that matter any technology safe for surveillance.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#319

Post by Barrin92 » Mon, May 16, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #67

diego_moita wrote: post #38

Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

People were fine "running their own servers" back when Skype was peer-to-peer. Or when Team Fortress 2 let you play with your friends.

because there weren't many alternatives. Dropped calls or latency issues were simply the norm and accepted as a trade off for being able to play. The reason companies used to favor p2p was because it was cheaper for them to not run servers.

But with people demanding more quality, richer content and consistent and stable connections p2p makes not much sense. Look at some Netflix blogs and how complex their infrastructure is geographically as well as in terms of hardware and software to deliver content at the cost to the user that they do.

Division of labor has made sense for hundreds of years and it will continue to do so for many more, the economics of p2p when resources matter doesn't check out.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#320

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, May 16, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

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".

Why would somebody be spending billions of dollars in VC money when you could just use whatever game engine you want and license a small third party library to do asset validation? VCs can't possibly be THAT eager to blow all their money unless it's as a PAAS ala Roblox.