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

181–190 of 220 posts

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#181

Post by Nevermark »

rchaud wrote: post #160
Wazako wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web3 is money! The web2.0 it is impossible to make transactions between people, sites, and others. It's easier to put an ad than to ask the visitor for money. Imagine the possibility of creating feedback with automatic micro-payments!

This will fail for the same reason other attempts at stimulating micropayments has. People are used to accessing text and video on the web for free. You and I may have a paid subscription to a Patreon or newspaper, but in both cases we are not paying piecemeal.

Micropayments need to be frictionless. If a 1 cent payment requires more than 1 cent of a persons time, it is not a workable system.

Many people would love to auto pay 1 or 2 cents a page view, to no longer see ads.

It might take a while, but I think eventually most people not in financial hardship will be happy to do that. (And people in financial hardship are not the best people to put ads in front of.)

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#182

Post by [deleted] »

poetaster wrote: post #139
aty268 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#183

Post by Nevermark »

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.

People who used PCs for software and games were in a minority.

It is hard to remember, but the WWW was the killer PC app for a huge majority that didn't jump on Visicalc, adventure games or other pre-web fare.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#184

Post by SkyMarshal »

def_true_false wrote: post #179
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…

Huh, a crypto thread on HN that's not 95% sour grapes? Well, color me surprised. Did a larger part of the usual HN crowd manage to get in at the start of the bull run this time?

Not really, the comment is describing an actual use case and unique value proposition of cryptocurrency, rather than talking about market price.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#185

Post by singularity2001 »

tmcw wrote: post #175
rewtraw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all are open source and tracking free. I hope it remains that way. Some do of course throw unnecessary signup pages before allowing you to connect your wallet. I immediately close the tab if I see that. They are the minority. It's the web, obviously there aren't firm rules. The point is that most of the builders in the space are hackers that want a free and open web void of that nonsense. And most of the proto…

> Nearly all are open source and tracking free. Just checked OpenSea - Google Analytics, Amplitude, DoubleClick, Cloudflare insights, plus error tracking from Sentry. Zapper has Google Analytics and Amplitude. Click through to 'connect wallet' and you're now sending data to DoubleClick Zerion has Google Analytics, plus Plausible Analytics for good measure. Then when you click through to "connect wallet", you get some…

That's very important information (and disgusting)

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#186

Post by singularity2001 »

Nevermark wrote: post #181
rchaud wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will fail for the same reason other attempts at stimulating micropayments has. People are used to accessing text and video on the web for free. You and I may have a paid subscription to a Patreon or newspaper, but in both cases we are not paying piecemeal.

Micropayments need to be frictionless. If a 1 cent payment requires more than 1 cent of a persons time, it is not a workable system. Many people would love to auto pay 1 or 2 cents a page view, to no longer see ads. It might take a while, but I think eventually most people not in financial hardship will be happy to do that. (And people in financial hardship are not the best people to put ads in front of.)

I tried micropayments three years ago but transaction fees of up to a dollar forbade 1 cent payments. Is this solved now somehow?

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#187

Post by yunohn »

overgard wrote: post #170
yunohn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While subscription fatigue is very real, I’m not sure micro transactions solves anything either. In fact, a great example is IAPs - most revenue is dominated by whales, with the rest barely transacting significantly at all.

IAP's basically are micro transactions though. After all, you're paying through Apple/Google and it's usually small enough amounts ($1-$10) that you can justify it to yourself. The problem with IAPs is the App part. I don't want to have to get the New York Times App to get rid of a NTY paywall.

> IAP's basically are micro transactions though

That’s exactly why I used it as a good example. And I didn’t mean that NYT has to use IAPs, they could easily integrate Apple/Google Pay for frictionless micro-payments if they wanted to. It’s just that consumers wouldn’t use it.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#188

Post by capableweb »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #88
tmcw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are building things like renewed web standards (Project Fugu, for example) and P2P networks (Beaker, Hypercore), and light clients (Mighty). These projects don't get any attention from the "Web3" crowd because they don't involve currency speculation.

Why exclude IPFS? That is near and dear to the web3/cryptocurrency space, but can also be leveraged without participating in currency speculation at all.

Because IPFS does get attention from the web3 crowd, it's even used in MetaMask and the comment you're replying to is commenting about projects that don't get attention from the web3 crowd.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#189

Post by yunohn »

hackingforfun wrote: post #128
yunohn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you were to decide to write your data onto a gold ingot Why do crypto enthusiasts feel the need to use gold as a strawman? The vast majority of non-crypto people use digital money (in local currencies), and have never touched gold in their lives. Digital money works great, and doesn’t need a blockchain.

> Why do crypto enthusiasts feel the need to use gold as a strawman? Well, at least the US, the government treats crypto as property, at least tax-wise (actually it's taxed just like real estate or gold). It's just that crypto is much more easily transferable than real estate or gold. > The vast majority of non-crypto people use digital money (in local currencies), and have never touched gold in their lives. Digital…

> government treats crypto as property, at least tax-wise

This is because the crypto community by and large also uses it like an investment asset, and not a currency.

> Negative interest rates in some parts of the world

This is to boost spending into the economy, and not as a result of currency being fiat.

> Ever increasing sovereign debt throughout the world, with no intent of ever paying it back

Sovereign debt is a problem, but it’s not solved by using an supply-limited cryptocoin. Governments exist for the people (corruption and inefficiency notwithstanding) and will create/spend money to build infra and promote the economy for its people.

> Lack of ability for 24/7 payments, or even instant payments

It’s good that you acknowledge a lot of these are USA-specific problems, because indeed, it’s possible to do 24/7 instant digital payments in most of Europe and Asia.

> No APIs for banks

Again, this is solved in EU (PSD2) and Asia (UPI in India). There are lots of apps that use these APIs and have created a burgeoning FinTech landscape.

> How do people here beat inflation

This is a social policy issue, and does need to be solved (not by currency changes though). The only people who worry about money vs inflation are wealthy people. Everyone else is trying to survive, and couldn’t care less about hodling crypto.

> proof of stake coins

These put early adopters and wealthier owners at an unfair advantage. Thus furthering wealth disparity. Even with fiat, the wealthy class can make good returns and avoid inflation, like you mentioned. The returns vary, but but so will crypto once adopted widely.

> reward for helping secure the proof of stake network

This is really wasteful. I’d much rather investments that support real-life industries, local entrepreneurship, or even just plain index funds that support the entire market.

> war on cash

I fully agree that the ruling class has been screwing over the average person, by devaluing their labor and greedily extracting profits.

But again, it’s a social problem, not one that tech like crypto will ever solve.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#190

Post by SkyMarshal »

tshaddox wrote: post #124
ketralnis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an extraordinary claim. Network protocols and currencies went some 60 years being unrelated to each other and I see no reason to think they won't continue right along that way after this current set of grifters finds a new set of marks

I've heard it argued that a huge flaw of the big protocols like HTTP is that they chose to be entirely unopinionated about payments. Apparently standards bodies did discuss standards for microtransactions, for example W3C's abandoned efforts: https://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/

Being opinionated about payments is not the same thing as building a speculative digital currency into your protocol.
Post reply on HN