Live data from Hacker News

Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

evolutionary.arweave.dev

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#41
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nobody uses crypto!” - people trying to make the use of crypto illegal

"Use crypto!" - bag-holders with a financial interest in crypto being used

You’re free to use whatever you want, this discussion is about whether you can ban others from doing the same.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#42

If the problem is that users using an app that's supposed to be, by it's governance structure, decentralized but in practice it's still centralised and this is the primary reason why changes aren't implemented/pushed through. I think it's more reasonable to think about solutions to the governance problem itself. Imo, thinking a plutocratic structure would ever bring forth power decentralisation is foolish to begin wi…

Wouldn't sortition be game-able by creating a lot of wallets with tiny amounts in?

You need a viable Proof of Human/Personhood system and afaik one does not yet exist.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#43

Another attempt to shill more and more tokens. What is wrong with open and simple protocols, like NOSTR? Thanks to the different NIPs (NOSTR Improvement Proposals) [1] any client can choose to support or ignore anything that another has bolted on. And incentives for developers, you ask? If your client or relay is truly better than the competition, then users want to use your software/Webapp. They will not mind paying…

Isn't nostr just clients connecting to multiple servers? With no communication between servers?

This is correct.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't sortition be game-able by creating a lot of wallets with tiny amounts in?

You need a viable Proof of Human/Personhood system and afaik one does not yet exist.

It's called an ID card / SSN.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#45
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Use crypto!" - bag-holders with a financial interest in crypto being used

You’re free to use whatever you want, this discussion is about whether you can ban others from doing the same.

as far as i can tell very few people want cryptocurrency to be illegal. what people do advocate for is KYC practices at crypto exchanges to protect customers from fraud.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#46
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re free to use whatever you want, this discussion is about whether you can ban others from doing the same.

as far as i can tell very few people want cryptocurrency to be illegal. what people do advocate for is KYC practices at crypto exchanges to protect customers from fraud.

ie. the patriot act argument. I don’t support the redistribution of consequences. Individuals can decide what risks they want to take, including whether they want a KYC exchange or not. If that works out poorly for them, that’s too bad. You’re not held responsible for their losses so you don’t get a say in how they choose to use their own money.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#47
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bot-to-bot wash trades as evidence of legitimacy, classic web3.

Unsupported conspiracy theories, classic cryptophobia.

Let me know when I can buy groceries with your fake money, in person, and have the transaction completed immediately.

Cryptocurrencies are just three ponzi schemes in a trench coat.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#48
post #16

Going to do y'all a favor and explain EXACTLY why this (and most DAO-like thingies) are goofy. The issue is trust. What you're trying to do is to encode trust and incentives among human beings, and it's far easier to do that WITHOUT complicating it via code.

I thought crypto was about solving a LACK of trust?

Correct. Crypto is. Money is an arguably good use case for "crypto-related tech."(lol, by definition, right?)

DAOs and such are hamfisted attempts to slap crypto-tech on things that AREN'T suited for it.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#49
post #16

Going to do y'all a favor and explain EXACTLY why this (and most DAO-like thingies) are goofy. The issue is trust. What you're trying to do is to encode trust and incentives among human beings, and it's far easier to do that WITHOUT complicating it via code.

Crypto is about trusting the validity of code over the integrity of people. There is a bit more to it than that, in trusting that micro-economic incentives and the design of the protocol will guard the protocol against capture, but that's the gist of it. Ultimately, open source code has a higher safety potential than the integrity of individuals, so I believe static services will trend toward becoming Ethereum protoc…

I agree, but those cases are VERY LIMITED. They would have to be something where the slowness and clunkiness of a blockchain is worth it. Anything private and small? Blockchains are stupid there.

Re: Darwin: A framework for evolving decentralized web apps

#50

If the problem is that users using an app that's supposed to be, by it's governance structure, decentralized but in practice it's still centralised and this is the primary reason why changes aren't implemented/pushed through. I think it's more reasonable to think about solutions to the governance problem itself. Imo, thinking a plutocratic structure would ever bring forth power decentralisation is foolish to begin wi…

Wouldn't sortition be game-able by creating a lot of wallets with tiny amounts in?

Yep. I didn't put it in my message because it was getting too long, but that's why I referred to crypto people trying to sort of square the circle. It's difficult to have accountability and anonymity.

There's some projects out there for verifying identities though. So it's possible. You definitely need to be "one person" for sortition to work. I mean, you want to have a proper deliberative structure for it anyway so there's gotta be discussion and so on. It's not something you where you can just skip deliberation altogether which kind of happens in a lot of these cases (for example, in referendum-democracy where people are simply asked to choose yes/no on a series of issues without them ever really engaging in the formation process of those issues).

Post reply on HN