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

Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 16 posts

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#3

Post by jokabrink »

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party.

Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party problem.

Ironically for Web3/etc. the "(no) trusted third party" is both the selling point and it's largest problem.

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#4

Post by peyton »

jokabrink wrote: post #3

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party. Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party pro…

> Ironically for Web3/etc. the "(no) trusted third party" is both the selling point and it's largest problem.

Here’s ethereum.org’s comparison of web 2 vs. web 3: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/web2-vs-web3/

I don’t see any mention of trustlessness. Rather, the selling points seem to be around different network designs.

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#6

Post by jokabrink »

peyton wrote: post #4
jokabrink wrote: post #3

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party. Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party pro…

> Ironically for Web3/etc. the "(no) trusted third party" is both the selling point and it's largest problem. Here’s ethereum.org’s comparison of web 2 vs. web 3: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/web2-vs-web3/ I don’t see any mention of trustlessness. Rather, the selling points seem to be around different network designs.

They don't mention smart contracts in that page either. However, if you look at https://ethereum.org/en/web3/ you will see this: "At its core, Web3 uses blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs to give power back to the users in the form of ownership". And this: "Web3 is trustless: it operates using incentives and economic mechanisms instead of relying on trusted third-parties."

So I guess, when they compare web2 with web3, they implicitly mean the things I quoted.

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#7

Post by ranon »

jokabrink wrote: post #3

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party. Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party pro…

Funny that you use that example. That's a classic example of something that's achievable in a trustless manner. If the address has no outbound activity for x time, transfer assets to beneficiary. Something like who wins the sportsball event would have to rely on a 3rd party oracle, of which there are many, but for the right price any of them can be tampered with.

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#8

Post by puranjay »

Two years deep in the web3 hole and after using practically every single protocol, I can't think of any "need to have" use cases either.

Everything is either completely unnecessary or a "nice to have". Like, say, trading video game assets. Or digital art. All nice to haves, but nothing that would even remotely warrant the kind of valuations the segment commands.

Re: Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

#9

Post by jokabrink »

ranon wrote: post #7
jokabrink wrote: post #3

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party. Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party pro…

Funny that you use that example. That's a classic example of something that's achievable in a trustless manner. If the address has no outbound activity for x time, transfer assets to beneficiary. Something like who wins the sportsball event would have to rely on a 3rd party oracle, of which there are many, but for the right price any of them can be tampered with.

I wouldn't want to rely on a dead man's switch pretty much my whole live. But you are right: There are many more examples. The one you mentioned suits better.
Post reply on HN