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

Web3 is a stupid idea

timdaub.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 220 posts

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#131

Post by puranjay »

rewtraw wrote: post #100

A large chunk of my internet experience lately has been on web3, and the experience is _wonderful_ despite it's immaturity. It's incredible to be able to go to different websites (Zapper, Zerion, OpenSea, etc.) and simply have all my data already exist -- without needing to create an account, export/import. web3 makes me believe in a new era of the internet that isn't full of ads, cookie consent forms, dozens of sign…

I signed up and paid for an analytics tool subscription by simply clicking “connect with metamask”. Another two clicks to send the payment and I was done.

No email accounts, no sign up forms, no credit card info, nothing.

I’m a lifelong convert to this tech now. I can’t ever imagine going back to sign up forms or sharing my personal data.

I can’t see how anyone who cares about their privacy isn’t hyper bullish about this.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#132

Post by poetaster »

patwolf wrote: post #50

I was around for web 2.0, and it felt like a substantial change over how the web worked previously. It was the first glimpse that the web was capable of replacing the desktop apps we were accustomed to, while simultaneously adding new capabilities that didn't exist in desktop apps. There was a lot more to it, but to the casual user that was the most obvious difference. This was the first thing I've read about web 3,…

A lot of activity... from a birds eye view, there is always a lot of activity in the swamp below. Paraphrasing an ancient.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#133

Post by puranjay »

zzok22 wrote: post #20

It's much easier to criticize than to build an alternative. I don't think anyone at Metamask or in the space in general thinks to themselves that the ecosystem is in a state of full maturity or that there aren't major problems. Despite its shortcomings, MM and Web3 have given us capabilities that simply didn't exist five years ago. And those capabilities aren't just limited to a select number of shadowy super hackers…

The criticism of this ecosystem is just absolutely short sighted.

When I first got internet, it was 56 kbps, a single page took minutes to load, and it was so expensive that I couldn’t stay online for more than 30 minutes per day.

It took 5 years for my town to get “broadband” at 256kbps, and another 5 years to get 2mbps.

Maybe I should have given up on the internet back in 1996 to…

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#134

Post by osense »

pphysch wrote: post #93
osense wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you look into blockchains like Solana and Fantom, there have been some technological advancements lately that allow crazy fast and cheap transactions (with some other downsides of course). I think of the current state of crypto as a kind of a wild west situation, there's still so much to be discovered and there's a lot of competition between different tokens to see who can do something better than the other…

Fantom: "Each network built in Fantom is independent from one another." Solana: "Many [Solana] clusters may coexist. When two clusters share a common genesis block, they attempt to converge. Otherwise, they simply ignore the existence of the other." Continuing my analogy, now they've gone and reinvented NAT/"IP federation", and destroyed the global P2P nature of Bitcoin. They've readded middlemen to online payments.…

Middlemen? Since when is a cluster of decentralized nodes a middleman?

Yes, it turns out that making a decentralized system both secure and scalable is a difficult problem, so people have been looking for ways to deal with it and improve on the original solution of Bitcoin (which, by the way, as I'm sure you know, has incredible energy consumption just to validate less than 5 transactions per second. How is that global?). I don't think that organizing decentralized nodes into some sort of bottom-up structure takes away from the P2P nature of blockchains. Just because a solution to a problem is not trivial and easy to understand (which Bitcoin is from the point of view of many more contemporary protocols), does not make it invalid.

At least Solana is a level 1 protocol, as opposed to some other solutions like sharding or zkRollups which add even more complexity.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#135

Post by poetaster »

cam0 wrote: post #6

I think it's poorly named. It's not a new major version of the web. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization vs. centralization even a single bit. People will continue to mindlessly use WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Coinbase because decentralization is not a concern for _most_ users. Most users of these apps just want to socialize with friends and family,…

I like to chat with other devs as we work out problems on community code bases. Web 1 would suffice since much talk is still in irc. But we would miss stuff like git/obs...

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#136

Post by puranjay »

masa331 wrote: post #101
zzok22 wrote: post #20

It's much easier to criticize than to build an alternative. I don't think anyone at Metamask or in the space in general thinks to themselves that the ecosystem is in a state of full maturity or that there aren't major problems. Despite its shortcomings, MM and Web3 have given us capabilities that simply didn't exist five years ago. And those capabilities aren't just limited to a select number of shadowy super hackers…

Can you tell me an example of what simply didn't exist five years ago and now exists bc of Web3? And the potential of the tech? Because i used to work in an agency and we develop apps and smart contracts for Ethereum and what they were doing were the most basic and primitive things, slow, fragile, incapable and very expensive to use. Not to mention all the environmental problems with PoW. Only reason we were developi…

Just today I paid for access to a data tool, icy.tools. I simply connected my Metamask wallet, clicked on “Unlock premium”, confirmed the transaction, and it was done.

Normally, I’d have to make an account (and doge the obligatory “sign up with Google” button), fill a form, enter my credit card info, confirm my otp on the payment site, check my email for an authentication link before using the product.

Along the way, I would have to share my data with multiple third parties - the SaaS tool, my email provider, my credit card company, etc.

With this web3 approach, I don’t have to share this data with anyone. I don’t have to fill out forms. In fact, if I got my Ethereum from a P2P source, I can be completely anonymous.

At this point in the internet, if you can avoid giving Google et al your data, its an absolute win.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#137

Post by poetaster »

dreyfan wrote: post #22
cam0 wrote: post #6

I think it's poorly named. It's not a new major version of the web. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization vs. centralization even a single bit. People will continue to mindlessly use WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Coinbase because decentralization is not a concern for _most_ users. Most users of these apps just want to socialize with friends and family,…

I’m so glad the entire decentralized community has rallied around the limitless power and innovation of NFTs.

I'd buy an officialchicken fungible whatyamathingy!

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#138

Post by tialaramex »

rvz wrote: post #103
tialaramex wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blockchains like Ethereum are part of the solution which help prevent something like that from happening. How so? The problem is that many humans are greedy. How do "Blockchains like Ethereum" fix that? The existence of a technology that's completely orthogonal to the problem isn't "part of the solution" although marketing it as a solution certainly does help move worthless tokens.

> How so? The problem is that many humans are greedy. How do "Blockchains like Ethereum" fix that? You do realise Ethereum is a blockchain ecosystem and not just a coin? So ENS isn't part of the solution then? Perhaps you yourself have your own better solution then?

I asked "How so?" and, rather than offer any answer at all, you've replied by jabbering about the blockchain again.

The closest to an answer is perhaps "So ENS isn't part of the solution then?" which I suppose hints that you believe somehow if everybody pays hundreds of dollars to some third party (sorry, for the "gas" to power an otherwise "free" transaction like a "free" gift that asks for $25 postage and packing...) this will somehow cure an unrelated problem. But who knows, since you didn't explain it.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#139

Post by poetaster »

aty268 wrote: post #74
Nevermark wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to tech, you can't judge what's important by people who use tech but don't spend three seconds in a day working on its possibilities. Surprisingly few regular people thought they wanted a PC before the World Wide Web. They still don't care about the technical details. Web 3.0 is obviously an aspirational name for what is still mostly a vision at this point. But developers need their moitivators. :)

The difference here though is that web 3 really is just 'technical details' to most people. PC's had potential, they were getting cheaper, faster, and more software was being written for them every day. People could play video games, and show off to their friends. Web 3 has none of that, it's all just technical details that 90% of the population doesn't care about one bit.

Flattr didn't fail because it wasn't blockchain. And paypal is still seen as a boon by most consumers in a hurry.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#140

Post by SamPatt »

Building p2p networks with their own light clients is incredibly difficult.

We built OpenBazaar (decentralized marketplace using cryptocurrency) as a p2p network on top on IPFS with it's own client. It eventually failed and everyone asked for a web version and a mobile app (which we built but wasn't truly decentralized thus negating the entire point).

I agree that the current web3 approach is often more decentralized in name than in practice, but it seems to be a tradeoff most people are happy with.

Post reply on HN