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

Is Web3 Bullshit?

maxread.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 383 posts

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#131

Post by woodruffw »

paulgb wrote: post #126
woodruffw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Bitcoin inflationary? Even without coin lossage (a ridiculous concept in any other financial system, short of literally setting your money on fire), the network is programmed to eventually stop minting coins. Fixed supply on increased demand (if it’s the economic substitute we’ve all been promised) is the precondition for deflationary movement. No amount of “pricing in” changes that.

It’s an argument of semantics, really: if it will eventually stop printing coins, I’d consider it inflationary until that point in time and non-inflationary thereafter. In practice, current holders are being diluted to subsidize the security of the network.

This isn’t consistent with the “priced in” position put forward by the original commenter. An asset class that is going to be fixed in quantity for the rest of time is an obvious target for pricing-in.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#132

Post by libertine »

postcynical wrote: post #32

web1: information web2: information, people web3: information, people, value (value as in money and other valuable assets)

Eh that sounds kind of forced.

Web always had value exchange from the beginning - in fact a big part of the largest companies we have today were built around that value.

In fact I was naive enough to think the web would eventually become more free of that "need" for value exchange (like processing power and network speeds would be enough for everyone to have their own "node" to host and share what ever they wanted), but the endgame o web3 seems to be to have micro transactions everywhere.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#133

Post by oleks »

sixQuarks wrote: post #129

Note to people reading these comments: HN Is notoriously anti-bitcoin and crypto. It was within hacker news discussions that I first heard about bitcoin, back when it was trading for less than one dollar. I did not buy bitcoin because I figured the hacker news crowd was very intelligent and knew a scam when they saw one. Just Keep this in mind when reading these comments make sure you take them with a grain of salt.

Just because you can earn money on something, does not make it good.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#134

Post by kennu »

"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you." Recently it feels like the general sentiment toward Web3 has been moving from the ridicule phase to the attack phase. Then finally comes the acceptance. In my view, the entire Web3 movement (not just the speculative virtual currencies and NFTs) is so big and covers so many new areas that it's here to stay forever. It's going to fundamentally change the way that people work together all around the world. In the coming decades there will be huge inventions around Web3 that we have no way to predict yet.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#135

Post by lottin »

flooow wrote: post #77
mattlondon wrote: post #7

It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.

If the crypto community wants to demonstrate that it isn't a giant Ponzi scheme, why not come up with a non-deflationary token, which will not massively reward 'early adopters' at the expense of everyone else, in perpetuity? (A non-deflationary token would be one where the supply grows by some reasonable percentage every year, effectively acting as a flat tax on one's holdings). In reality, non-deflationary cryptocur…

Tokens are neither deflationary nor inflationary. The idea that an asset is deflationary or inflationary implies that the supply of the asset determines its price. This is incorrect from a theoretical standpoint, as well as from what empirical evidence tells us. It's a misapplication of the Quantity Theory of Money. QTM is a theory of money, it doesn't apply to stocks, tokens, assets in general, or in situations where there are competing currencies.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#136

Post by [deleted] »

sixQuarks wrote: post #129

Note to people reading these comments: HN Is notoriously anti-bitcoin and crypto. It was within hacker news discussions that I first heard about bitcoin, back when it was trading for less than one dollar. I did not buy bitcoin because I figured the hacker news crowd was very intelligent and knew a scam when they saw one. Just Keep this in mind when reading these comments make sure you take them with a grain of salt.

[deleted]

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#137

Post by mccorrinall »

oleks wrote: post #133
sixQuarks wrote: post #129

Note to people reading these comments: HN Is notoriously anti-bitcoin and crypto. It was within hacker news discussions that I first heard about bitcoin, back when it was trading for less than one dollar. I did not buy bitcoin because I figured the hacker news crowd was very intelligent and knew a scam when they saw one. Just Keep this in mind when reading these comments make sure you take them with a grain of salt.

Just because you can earn money on something, does not make it good.

I think that bitcoin is actually a good solution to the double spending problem in decentralized currencies.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#138

Post by woodruffw »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #125
woodruffw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The confusion here is most people confuse the web for the internet. The internet is a big decentralized network thanks to BGP. The web is an application riding that network thanks to HTTP. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but aren’t you making exactly that error above? DNS both predates and exposes networking infrastructure that isn’t the web. And for what it’s worth, I would consider DNS decentralized: it’s a system of…

> No one party owns the DNS network. The root servers kind of do, along with central authorities like ICANN which gatekeep the TLDs

No, they don’t. The root server owners (who are mostly universities and research groups, last time I checked) have no formal ownership over the DNS network. They cannot seize or stop any participant in the network, including your scummy local ISP.

Confusing the TLD situation for ownership is making the same “distributed, authoritative” mistake.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#139

Post by jazzyjackson »

sixQuarks wrote: post #129

Note to people reading these comments: HN Is notoriously anti-bitcoin and crypto. It was within hacker news discussions that I first heard about bitcoin, back when it was trading for less than one dollar. I did not buy bitcoin because I figured the hacker news crowd was very intelligent and knew a scam when they saw one. Just Keep this in mind when reading these comments make sure you take them with a grain of salt.

hey you could have lost a lot of money if you tried to cut losses when it crashed to a quarter

every dollar made in bitcoin is someone else’s dollar lost, it’s a casino, nothing more

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#140

Post by fastball »

jstx1 wrote: post #72
hbbio wrote: post #58

I have the impression that most comments here are either biased against cryptocurrencies or trying to push for them blindly. That's a bit sad considering we should at least be discussing the technology here. web3 is a marketing brand that defines a future version of web apps where the frontend is a compiled SPA possibly hosted on decentralised platforms (IPFS) and where the backend is a decentralised blockchain (and…

Who's maintaining the service instead of AWS in the web3 scenario?

Well usually whoever deployed the web3 product is collecting fees for its use in some capacity so they have a vested interest in developing it.

Either that or they are holding a huge bag of some project-native token and so they have a vested interest in developing it because increased usage usually correlates to the price of said token increasing as well.

Post reply on HN