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

Why Web3?

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#151

Post by ReggieCommaRose »

nathias wrote: post #109
wslh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very simple: imagine you have decentralized Uber/Lyft so now all the logic occurs in a decentralized way. Now, Uber^2 publishes a great mobile app, the mobile app is obviously centralized and they can decide to use or not and how to use the decentralized mechanism because they are the winners as the UX. Isn't this obvious?

Oh you're thinking that centralized apps would always produce better UX for some reason? I think centralized apps are making UX necessarily worse, because they implement dark patterns in order to milk their users, while in a decentralized ones you can just make your own. For example, matrix vs discord, one I can customize and interact with however I want the other is garbage and if I change anything I will get banned…

The topic at hand is mainstream adoption and I think empirically the world disagrees with you.

Re: Why Web3?

#152

Post by root_axis »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #135
root_axis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.

Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? So if the original is from a trust/known entity (like an IRL company or suitably famous artist) this doesn't work. The list of trusted entities could be centralized, crowd-sourced, hand-managed, or anything else; let people decide who they trust to make those determinations and let them switch between them at will.

> Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy?

The problem being described above is the possibility of the trusted author minting multiple digital signature NFTs for the same content. A reseller can't create a copy because they can't sign a message conferring ownership from the trusted source without their private key.

Re: Why Web3?

#153

Post by dathinab »

indigochill wrote: post #90
davidhariri wrote: post #84

> Frankly, it is all too much for me. Same. I've been actively unfollowing people on Twitter every day to clean my feeds of it. I'm not anti-web3 or anti-crypto, but I definitely don't need to read the same rhetoric from 100 people a day. Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it...

> Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it... And the order of operations. Traditionally, you build something great (or an MVP) and market it. The crypto community has been putting the marketing before the building. It's probably uncontroversial to say although cryptocurrency -could- do great things, right now the bulk of trade…

I read an article recently which claimed that the majority of transaction volume is not speculation, but scams, fraud and similar. Like e.g. pyramid schemes.

And that is where an average football fan needs crypto, to provide more monetary volume for scams and speculators manipulating the marked to siphon of.

Or at least that was the take of the article, I'm not completely sure in either direction.

Re: Why Web3?

#154

Post by jandrese »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #98
doomrobo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public.…

Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digita…

A NFT is just a digital receipt, and there's nothing that ties the receipt to the original creator or work except for a bit of text that the person creating the NFT has full control over. So they are effectively worthless for determining ownership, especially for copyright purposes.

The "non-fungible" part refers only to the receipt, not the original work.

Re: Why Web3?

#155

Post by tehjoker »

davidhariri wrote: post #84

> Frankly, it is all too much for me. Same. I've been actively unfollowing people on Twitter every day to clean my feeds of it. I'm not anti-web3 or anti-crypto, but I definitely don't need to read the same rhetoric from 100 people a day. Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it...

It's just a grift that people want you to buy into. That's why they're so invested in talking about it. If the technology was good, it'd practically sell itself.

Re: Why Web3?

#156

Post by mendyberger »

Kiro wrote: post #106

I don't like how the extreme hatred toward Web3 has spiraled into "I see no practical application for decentralization". Crypto and blockchain aside, how can you not see the utility in an open firehose database/API without gate keepers? Don't conflate decentralization with blockchain.

It blows my mind how many people keep dismissing decentralization because of problems in the NFT space.

Re: Why Web3?

#157

Post by [deleted] »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #126
root_axis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.

Thats not the same thing.

[deleted]

Re: Why Web3?

#158

Post by danenania »

jedberg wrote: post #93

HN wasn't around when Web2.0 became a thing, but I don't remember Slashdot being filled with constant articles justifying Web2.0. I'm am just forgetting or were we as a community a lot less divided about it?

Web 2.0 was a label created to describe an emergent trend (ajax, rich ui, rounded corners, drop shadows) that was well underway by the time the label was popular.

web3 seems to be attempting the reverse: popularize the label first and hope the trend follows.

Re: Why Web3?

#159

Post by undeadsushi »

Yes the marketing is annoying, but have you actually experimented with the world of Web3. Have you played with defi, bought in early any gaming tokens? The fact that all of this can happen on-chain where it's completely transparent is really unique. It's why there has been so many companies explode into the 50M-100M revenue range in 2021 - https://consensys.net/reports/web3-report-q3-2021/

Re: Why Web3?

#160

Post by sergiotapia »

I feel sad that this beautiful thing has been usurped by shysters, grifters and scumbags. Web3 is decentralization. Not crypto, not blockchain, not your shitcoin, not your mining and most definitely not your NFTs.

We need to take it back for our children's sake.

Post reply on HN