Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web 3.0 – The Great Con

davegebler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#171

Post by zeroclip »

bertman wrote: post #161
zeroclip wrote: post #154

This post is mostly about Bitcoin and Proof of Work. Currently "Web3" tech is being built on Ethereum, Proof of Stake, zero-knowledge proofs, rollup sequencers, data availability sampling, and multi-party computation. The recent advances are not like the earliest iterations; a harsh critique of Bitcoin is not equivalent to the harsh critique of Web3. The post is riddled with fallacies. For example: > Imagine, for exa…

>while meeting the promised goals: a set of trustless, permissionless, and decentralized tools for transferring and owning value on the internet. I'm sorry, I know this isn't reddit, but: fucking lol. What do you even mean? What does "owning value on the internet" mean? This is exactly the kind of handwaving the article is about.

“Value” in this context is a digital asset that is assigned to you and can be exchanged for some real world value.

One example is PayPal. When you deposit fiat into a PayPal account, you get back an asset: a digital and virtual currency that PayPal holds custody over for you.

Another example is a digital gift card, like a $50 voucher for Amazon. The key associated with this card holds value, and in some cases you can even gift and transfer this online.

Another example is a domain name. If you own a valuable domain name like Meta.com, the asset isn’t “money” but it also isn’t worthless or valueless.

Now take a DAI stablecoin, Aave position, or ENS domain. Very much the same as above assets, except that they align more closely with the three aforementioned properties: trustless, permissionless, and decentralized.

In all of these cases we use the term “ownership” but the ownership of dollars in a PayPal account and ownership of DAI tokens in a wallet have very different properties.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#172

Post by dwgebler »

illiac786 wrote: post #157

I agree with the bottom line, but the form, why does the author have to exaggerate like this? Cryptocurrencies are not "useless except for criminals"... Blockchain is also not useless. It's just much less useful than the hype makes it out to be. Making absolute statements like this isn't helpful, it makes it easy to demolish the argument for the actual scammers.

Hi, author here. So the first thing is as something meant to be an engaging (though casual) read and one which is targeted at an audience who might not all be tech buffs, of course there's some simplification, glossing over some things and yes, a bit of hyperbole here and there for dramatic effect. The opening paragraph, for example, obviously lays out a strong and provocative position to immediately engage the reader and establish the post's theme as a critical piece.

The other part is the article already comes in at something like 3800 words. I could write five, ten times that on the subject and still not be done. I have to pick and choose what I cover and in what detail.

The primary use case of cryptocurrencies (and in particular Bitcoin) today, when used directly as currency, as a means of purchase, is criminal activity. The article glossed over that there are other niche use cases where coins are used as currencies but they are very much a niche, particularly when weighed against the biggest use of crypto today which is simply as a form of something analogous to stock trading only without the regulation.

But this is almost a secondary point; the article is about "Web 3" hype, these points are relevant insofar as the thing which is really being challenged is this idea that crypto and blockchain will be the foundation of a major new era in the web.

I'll certainly take it as constructive feedback on my writing if that isn't clear enough. Thanks.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#173

Post by bertman »

zeroclip wrote: post #171
bertman wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while meeting the promised goals: a set of trustless, permissionless, and decentralized tools for transferring and owning value on the internet. I'm sorry, I know this isn't reddit, but: fucking lol. What do you even mean? What does "owning value on the internet" mean? This is exactly the kind of handwaving the article is about.

“Value” in this context is a digital asset that is assigned to you and can be exchanged for some real world value. One example is PayPal. When you deposit fiat into a PayPal account, you get back an asset: a digital and virtual currency that PayPal holds custody over for you. Another example is a digital gift card, like a $50 voucher for Amazon. The key associated with this card holds value, and in some cases you can…

>except that they align more closely with the three aforementioned properties: trustless, permissionless, and decentralized.

But wouldn't you agree that the article is mainly about why "Web 3.0" has failed over and over again to provide exactly these properties, or to provide a valuable solution to a problem that hasn't been or could be solved in a better way already?

Literally everything related to "Web 3.0" has been a snowbally scam, and yet, as another commenter in this thread put it aptly, "the "pull back" in hype has allowed a new breed of charlatans to pretend there is ever more legitimacy to this whole scam".

It is, for me at least, impossible to take DAI stablecoins, AAVE positions or any other new kid on the block seriously.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#174

Post by hrbf »

afiori wrote: post #168
hrbf wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when you remove the human greed part So they are theoretically a good idea with no practical application in the real world.

The problem with good applications of NFTs is that we still do not know what an NFT is. In particular there are a lot of variables around reselling restrictions, profit sharing, meaningful ownership, copyright, etc.

That doesn’t change the fact that it has no application in the real world beyond being meaningless garbage pushed for a grift.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#175

Post by john_snowden »

Ledgers, blockchain, distributed systems, etc prexisted, long before web 3.0 and cryptocurrencies. Those are not disruptive technologies and they don't offer anything new, neither they solve any new problems.

Bitcoin on the other hand, as it was presented by Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper, is the disruptive technology. Took existing technologies and combine them in a way making something unique. It is not a currency, it is a platform of trust. For the first time in human history there is a tool that enables online exchange of value, which is peer-to-peer, permissionless, censorship resistant, borderless, neutral and open.

The rest of the applications that are built on this idea may be "useless" as the author believes, maybe not. I don't know that and I don't think anyone can be sure.

When the current financial system is a fraud and rigged the only bad thing that web 3.0 and cryptocurrencies could do is not making it better.

MIT course MAS.S62 Cryptocurrency Engineering and Design is free in youtube and helped me understand more about money, the tech and what problems is solving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJquEYhiq_U&list=PLUl4u3cNGP...

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#176

Post by zeroclip »

bertman wrote: post #173
zeroclip wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Value” in this context is a digital asset that is assigned to you and can be exchanged for some real world value. One example is PayPal. When you deposit fiat into a PayPal account, you get back an asset: a digital and virtual currency that PayPal holds custody over for you. Another example is a digital gift card, like a $50 voucher for Amazon. The key associated with this card holds value, and in some cases you can…

>except that they align more closely with the three aforementioned properties: trustless, permissionless, and decentralized. But wouldn't you agree that the article is mainly about why "Web 3.0" has failed over and over again to provide exactly these properties, or to provide a valuable solution to a problem that hasn't been or could be solved in a better way already? Literally everything related to "Web 3.0" has bee…

The article focuses on Bitcoin, Proof of Work, hyped statements like houses-on-the-blockchain, and Ponzi schemes like Bitconnect, which is to say that it isn't focusing on any of today's Web3 tools or products, and especially is not focusing on the successful protocols coming out of Web3.

If you or the author feels that Uniswap, DAI, ENS, and AAVE are scams, try to provide some rationale for this claim. Otherwise these sweeping statements are just as hollow as saying that SMPT is a Great Con based on the notion that 85% of today's circulating email is illegitimate.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#177

Post by zeroclip »

ethanbond wrote: post #164
illiac786 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was obvious, apologies: anonymous payments. Do you also require an example of why anonymous payments are useful to non-criminals?

But actually conducting an anonymous payment, even on a blockchain, is not straightforward at all, and it’s almost certainly a bad idea to do so on a permanent public ledger.

Running a server is not straight forward, but people still manage to do it.

These UX problems can be solved. An example is Aztec protocol[1] which makes it easy to send and receive anonymous payments without running a private blockchain node.

[1] https://zk.money/

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#178

Post by zeroclip »

dwgebler wrote: post #172
illiac786 wrote: post #157

I agree with the bottom line, but the form, why does the author have to exaggerate like this? Cryptocurrencies are not "useless except for criminals"... Blockchain is also not useless. It's just much less useful than the hype makes it out to be. Making absolute statements like this isn't helpful, it makes it easy to demolish the argument for the actual scammers.

Hi, author here. So the first thing is as something meant to be an engaging (though casual) read and one which is targeted at an audience who might not all be tech buffs, of course there's some simplification, glossing over some things and yes, a bit of hyperbole here and there for dramatic effect. The opening paragraph, for example, obviously lays out a strong and provocative position to immediately engage the reade…

Why don't you write an article about Web3 technology instead of Bitcoin or vacuous crypto-influencer statements? If all of Web3 is a con, then you should have no trouble dismantling the usefulness of ENS, Aave, DAI, and Uniswap. Spending time talking about Bitcoin, Proof of Work, Bitconnect, and other unrelated issues detracts from your essay.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#179

Post by ThomPete »

hiq wrote: post #153
ThomPete wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't see the value of what is fundamentally a public ledger database, then I am not sure what to tell you. It's being used by many people today. It's not for everyone. It will evolve and at one point we won't even know we are using it. The thing about blockchain isn't that it isn't that you couldn't build it with "web2" the thing is it would be unfeasible to do so and still maintaining the trust. By separatin…

> It will evolve and at one point we won't even know we are using it. It's been more than 10 years and billions poured into the ecosystem since Bitcoin started, and I still don't know anybody who uses a blockchain for anything beyond speculation, even though I'm in tech. After how many more years without widespread adoption would you be convinced otherwise?

10 years is nothing and again just because you don't know anyone, doesn't mean they don't exist so not sure what you want me to say to that.

Plenty of people use is.

Re: Web 3.0 – The Great Con

#180

Post by bo1024 »

dwgebler wrote: post #88
bo1024 wrote: post #66

This doesn't seem to cover any new ground or engage with anything interesting outside of finance. Is the author telling all of these researchers (Stanford, MIT, Columbia, etc) that there is nothing interesting or new in blockchain? https://adacrunch.medium.com/cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-r... Disclaimer: I have a small grant from the Ethereum Foundation to research methods of voting and governance/decisionmaking in…

I am saying there's nothing (or very little) interesting or novel in blockchain, yes. I mean that's literally in the article. a huge ecosystem built on what is in reality a simple data structure which is neither particularly novel nor interesting

That's just ignorant of the large amount of interesting blockchain-related ideas and research going on (again, most of which you don't mention in the article).
Post reply on HN