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

You Don't Own Web3

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#21

Post by jazzyjackson »

starklevnertz wrote: post #6

Can someone explain what is meant by this?

It may be related, there is a video making the rounds of a crypto-CEO explaining Web3 to a congressional committee [0][5m56s], the major theme being that owning tokens is part ownership in the platform, the old Web is owned by tech giants, the new web is owned by anyone who holds a token. The whole thing reads to me as sleight of hand, too slick, but I couldn’t place my finger on what the lie/misrepresentation was. Nonetheless, the comments are glowing reviews, best explanation of blockchain ever !!!1!

I don’t suppose Dorsey is responding directly to this video, tho at 4M views it is worth contradicting, but “Web3 is owned by the users” is the latest salesmenship for NFT-flippers.

[0] https://youtu.be/pSTNhBlfV_s

PS sure would be nice to link to congressional testimony without an ad pre-roll, but alas

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#22

Post by sys_64738 »

laputan_machine wrote: post #20

Can someone explain to me what even "Web3" means? It seems like a nonsense buzzword. I mean "Web 2.0" meant ajax, right? And even then it's a silly difference to make, like calling every new addition to the ECMAscript standard a new version of the web...

Isn’t Web3 meant to be decentralized sort of like peer to peer? Or it used to but maybe that’s not a thing anymore.

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#23

Post by nootropicat »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #8

if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to. The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air, big techno-gobble-dygook and made up words invented to dazzle an ignorant audience. But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what w…

>And they're left with peddling NFT's

Literally every argument against image NFTs is also an argument against art. Art is not a yield producing asset. Just like NFTs can be right-clicked and saved, indistinguishable to the naked eye reproductions of expensive paintings can be ordered relatively cheaply. The idea of the 'original' is a social abstraction, just like the idea of who's the real owner of a NFT is a social abstraction.

Exactly like physical art, image NFTs are fueled by a desire to own status symbols and the eternal need to launder money, in unknown proportions. They are objectively better than physical art at both. They are better status symbols because it's easier to show other people that you own expensive NFTs than it is with real art. It's enough if your ethereum address is publicly known and it's there. There's no fraud possible. With real art, you have to go out of your way to show it - maybe by inviting others to your home, but then they may wonder whether it's real or a reproduction. For money laundering it's way easier to sell NFTs for big amounts anonymously than real art.

Those two fundamental properties also make it somewhat of an investment, if you can predict what people belonging to one, or both, of those groups are going to want in the future.

For those two reasons physical art is going to be less and less important.

>The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air

Considering your knowledge of such details as iota's hash functions, it's clear you're being intentionally misleading. Ethereum is 6 years old, and the technology to scale to global levels - zkrollups - only started to arrive in 2021.

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#24

Post by malermeister »

unmole wrote: post #9
jjordan wrote: post #3

Jack is what we lovingly refer to as a Bitcoin maximalist. They are unmoved by innovations that happen outside of the Bitcoin project and tend to call everything that isn't Bitcoin centralized garbage.

> Jack is what we lovingly refer to as a Bitcoin maximalist. What is a not so loving term?

[flagged]

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#25

Post by malermeister »

bko wrote: post #19
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #8

if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to. The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air, big techno-gobble-dygook and made up words invented to dazzle an ignorant audience. But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what w…

> But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what we have When someone figures out how to custody financial assets on the blockchain (e.g. stocks, bonds, etc), then you can create exchanges that aren't regulated and are open 24-7. You can also create contracts that mimic synthetic derivatives. Sure you may not like the idea but you don't have to use those exchanges. And sure things…

That sounds exactly like

> "wE aWe vEWy close to bweakthrough"

as described by parent.

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#26

Post by malermeister »

nootropicat wrote: post #23
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #8

if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to. The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air, big techno-gobble-dygook and made up words invented to dazzle an ignorant audience. But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what w…

>And they're left with peddling NFT's Literally every argument against image NFTs is also an argument against art. Art is not a yield producing asset. Just like NFTs can be right-clicked and saved, indistinguishable to the naked eye reproductions of expensive paintings can be ordered relatively cheaply. The idea of the 'original' is a social abstraction, just like the idea of who's the real owner of a NFT is a social…

> Literally every argument against image NFTs is also an argument against art.

It is not. It's an argument against capitalism. Don't conflate them, there's art outside of capitalism, too.

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#27

Post by longitudinal93 »

laputan_machine wrote: post #20

Can someone explain to me what even "Web3" means? It seems like a nonsense buzzword. I mean "Web 2.0" meant ajax, right? And even then it's a silly difference to make, like calling every new addition to the ECMAscript standard a new version of the web...

SV luminary Jordan Hall spends some time answering your query in this interview on Rebel Wisdom:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o32x9qx3Umo

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#28

Post by cableshaft »

rvz wrote: post #17
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #8

if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to. The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air, big techno-gobble-dygook and made up words invented to dazzle an ignorant audience. But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what w…

Exactly. Most of all these cryptocurrencies have failed and they will not survive regulations if they were to come in. > there are very few applications where blockchains make sense (e-sports and games, the SWIFT banking "backend"). Yet even for those a central database is a better technological, and business fit than coins and blockchains while also not being as environmentally damaging. The banks will just use Cent…

Most cryptocurrencies failing is not an argument against them.

Most startups fail too (90% in 2019 according to Investopedia[1]). Does that mean no one should invest in, work on, or give a chance to any startups?

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04091...

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#29

Post by m_ke »

longitudinal93 wrote: post #27
laputan_machine wrote: post #20

Can someone explain to me what even "Web3" means? It seems like a nonsense buzzword. I mean "Web 2.0" meant ajax, right? And even then it's a silly difference to make, like calling every new addition to the ECMAscript standard a new version of the web...

SV luminary Jordan Hall spends some time answering your query in this interview on Rebel Wisdom: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o32x9qx3Umo

How can you take his technobabble seriously?

Re: You Don't Own Web3

#30

Post by manigandham »

laputan_machine wrote: post #20

Can someone explain to me what even "Web3" means? It seems like a nonsense buzzword. I mean "Web 2.0" meant ajax, right? And even then it's a silly difference to make, like calling every new addition to the ECMAscript standard a new version of the web...

There are 3 main features:

1) Decentralized apps (dapps) - Backend of websites/service that run as smart contracts on a particular blockchain instead of a centralized infrastructure. More resilient and inherently scalable.

2) Decentralized identity - Instead of creating user accounts for every site, identities are just wallet addresses. People maintain their own data and use their own keys to sign transactions.

3) Decentralized ownership (records) - NFTs are secure records of payment for ownership of a digital asset and can be traded easily.

The theme is that everything is available and keeps running without censorship, corruption, or other influence getting in the way, as long as the chain itself is still running. Whether there's serious utility in that is still unknown. I also think it's unlikely given how much we're tied to physical bodies and sovereign nations with their own laws and politics.

Post reply on HN