Live data from Hacker News

Web3 is a stupid idea

timdaub.github.io

201–210 of 220 posts

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#201

My main concern with it is that a lot of these temporary ecosystem workarounds become de facto standard and it lessens the original purpose of doing all this. An example in the article is Infura. It is a system designed to allow easy use of the network in the interim before a truly decentralized peer to peer network is mature, but habits form and interests entrench and tools get built on infrastructure and you get le…

100% agree with your post. This line of thinking was a big motivator to write the article!

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#202
post #171

The premise and conclusion of the post is strange because it seems to say Web3 is extremely awesome, and therefore should become default in browers, rather then having to deal with extension!?!? Or did I get this wrong? Brave already integrates these things by the way.

You're righty it's exactly the premise of the article.

Seey I've been building in the crypto space since a long time and this post was also a way to express my impatience. I'd like some things to have progressed further by now. Particularly all the web standardization points...

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#203
post #71

Post's date has 2020, but it also says Sept. 8th, therefore I ask: Is this exactly one year old, or a date error?

No this article is one year old. But it's true that it's a rather weird coincidenct that it popped on HN exactly a year later.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#204
post #61

> you're able to pool thousands of dollars What does it mean 'to pool' ether? I'm not familiar with using it as a verb. Or rather, if its just a transaction, what is the mraning of the choice of the word pool for such an event.

I suggest you do research in Ethereum on:

- staking

- automated market makers

- p2p lending/borrowing

E.g. the compound.finance whitepaper explains some technical details well.

One incomplete definition could be that you submit your money temporarily to the control of a mart contract.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#205
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about bittorrent?

Bittorrent is fantastic for 'altruistic' activity. But it is useless if you want to build a for profit Netflix. You may have to look at something like IPFS that accounts for economic incentives I the protocol.

BitTorrent was used for the blizzard updater as well as internal tech for moving around files needed on many machines at various companies.

But none of that matters because it was created and was/is well used

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMO GP's comment had a narrative that newer projects that are pushing forward renewed web standards are getting completely ignored by "Web3", however one of the bigger projects is heavily embraced

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#207
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I appreciate your response and I think you make a lot of sense. However, it sounds to me like you trust governments a lot more than I do. I think the first priority of politicians and governments is to stay in power, and everything else, including social good, is an afterthought. I'm not an anarchist, and I do think that having some government is good, but I appreciate that there is now some (potential) competition to sovereign currencies because I think governments are not managing their currencies well and that affects their people.

I have an issue being an American and USD being able to be printed almost endlessly. Also, hopefully The Fed will eventually raise rates again, but we won't know until that actually happens, and until then, high inflation, good stock performance, and basically zero interest on savings accounts (which I think is a problem).

I also think that crypto pushes those slow to change to innovate to keep up. But, as you point out, other parts of the world are ahead of traditional banking vs the US, so that has the same effect, but I think coming at it from all sides, forcing static industries to change, is a good thing.

I think it's also worth taking note of how the US changed it's tune on creating a CBDC, I assume because China is way ahead in that regard. Again, innovation is forcing those slower to change, to change. Speaking of that, do you think if China's CBDC takes off, that traditional finance will have a chance competing? Something like that could become the new world reserve currency and other countries have to keep up their innovation so that they can compete with that.

Some other specific responses:

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

I don't have an issue with this, but anyway, I think it's because the government wants a tax cut. They could make it a currency / legal tender. Some countries have (El Salvador). It looks like more South American countries are soon to follow (Panama could be next [1]). I think this is also an example of how this technology is not going away anytime soon.

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

This is still an example that the existing system has some problems.

> The only people who worry about money vs inflation are wealthy people.

Well, I'm curious to know how folks on HN (some of whom are wealthy, startup founders, etc.), are thinking about problems like this.

> 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.

Crypto does support entrepreneurship and it creates jobs (locally and globally). New platforms are being created on it. I don't think everything should always stay the same and I don't think traditional financial systems should be the only option. Let's iterate and innovate.

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

Again, I don't trust that governments actually care enough or will actually do that much to change existing structures. Something like crypto has the potential to force them to change. Also, there will at least be a wealth distribution to crypto investors, and the barrier to entry is much lower than traditional markets (in part because it's new, but also in part because it's a global technology that is not tied to any government).

[1] https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/panama-unveils-bill-to...

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#208

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/

When HTTP was first developed there was literally no available mechanism for micro-transactions. If HTTP had been opinionated about micro-transactions it would have been stuck with Beenz [0] or Flooz [1].

Personally I don't want an application layer protocol, especially a global standard, to be opinionated about payment methods.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beenz.com

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooz.com

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#209
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first had home Internet in 1997, and even then its value was immediately obvious. - Email - Chatrooms - Maps and directions - Newspapers from around the world, free (even WSJ didn't put up a paywall until 2005). - IT troubleshooting information that didn't require calling the surly clowns at your local computer shop. Does Web3 have something like that that makes it a must-have?

Web3 gives me immediate access to a global, always-on, completely decentralized market with absolutely no gatekeepers. Money has always had gatekeepers. Sure, Stripe et al have made the barriers to entry lower, but they've only replaced legacy gatekeepers with newer ones. For the longest time, I couldn't even accept payments easily from US customers on my eCommerce site because Stripe wasn't available in my home coun…

So if I understand correctly, the benefits of Web 3 are largely payment related.

It still doesn't sound like something the general public would adopt. You have to learn a whole new way of doing things, in order to get paid in a currency that has no use outside of asset speculation.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#210
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this substantially different from a website with a PayPal button? That's 2-3 clicks, max. The only difference seems to be that with PP I pay with real money, and Web3 is with cryptocurrencies only.

What if I don't want to share my email, phone number, bank account, and credit card data with PayPal? Its really disturbing to me that privacy and data rights get absolutely zero consideration even on HN.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN