Live data from Hacker News

Web3? I have my DAOts

networked.substack.com

201–210 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s worth considering what the value proposition of crypto looks like if you were to find yourself living under an illegitimate authority The cables where communications pass through are protected by armies If crypto eventually could pose a threat to those illegitimate authorities, they would give orders to cut the cables and games would be over. they could also trace them back to your house.

If your government was cutting off access to internet over the possibility that people might use it to conduct their business in cryptocurrency, do you think local demand for crypto would increase or decrease? The cable-cut might work for a while, but it wouldn't take too long for partition tolerant crypos emerge. You don't really need global consistency for most things, given that resources tend to be local.

> it wouldn't take too long for partition tolerant crypos emerge

Wouldn’t it? This is an unsolved problem and there is nothing that implies it can ‘quickly emerge’.

One of the paradoxes about crypto is that all problems with it can be quickly solved in the future, but somehow continue to exist in the present.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#202
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFT's don't grant you any rights of ownership of JPEGs

They don't but that’s how people interpret NFTs. They think of NFTs as buying an asset that demonstrates authentic ownership of media. NFTs conceptual value doesn’t map to anything that seems remotely valuable at present moment. There’s no mental model for owning this inmaterial thing that is pegged to a digital file that can be duplicated infinitely without your approval.

> that’s how people interpret NFTs

Almost no ‘people’ interpret NFTs this way.

> There’s no mental model for owning this inmaterial thing that is pegged to a digital file that can be duplicated infinitely without your approval.

There is no mental model because there is no ownership.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#203
post #70

> NFTs prove neither ownership nor uniqueness Except that's literally what they do, using a combination of digital signatures and timestamp. You can have a copy of the same NFT even on a different chain but the timestamp will be higher, therefore proving it's not the original. Plus the problem of referencing the content is solved by having all data on chain (likely on layer 2). Recurring problems in the world of art…

> Ironically that's exactly because the artwork was not (referenced) on chain. If that was the case any subsequent copy would not be recognized as the original because of the timestamp and wouldn't have nearly the same value.

So the solution is that every artist mints every piece they create before showing it to anybody else. All because somebody decided that a "blockchain" is now what determines who created a piece of art. How convenient for the crypto holders.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#204

I really don't think that Mona Lisa example is correct. Maybe I misunderstand NFTs, but wouldn't it be more like a printmaker who can make as many copies as desired, but the museum sells something like the Artist's Proof and documents the sale in an official newsletter that goes out to all members? Yes, everyone else has a print or a poster version, but only one buyer has the Artist's Proof and can prove its provenan…

NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset. They're like minting a commemorative coin celebrating the asset, and only minting a single coin. The coin does not represent ownership of the asset. It's just...a coin. A token. Supposedly, the uniqueness gives it value, but if I decide to record a single fart, that fart is unique, but the uniqueness does not inherently create value. An NFT for the M…

> NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset

They don’t ever.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#205
post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

The thing I think driving Bitcoin is that all the other assets that can absorb billions of dollars in liquidity are throughly manipulated. A trillion dollars goes into Sovereign Debt. The government can issue endless sovereign debt to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into the stock market. The companies on the stock market can issue tons and tons of new shares to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into paper go…

Other assets classes can absorb billions of dollars because that's not a lot of money to them while it's a ton for Bitcoin.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#206
post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

The thing I think driving Bitcoin is that all the other assets that can absorb billions of dollars in liquidity are throughly manipulated. A trillion dollars goes into Sovereign Debt. The government can issue endless sovereign debt to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into the stock market. The companies on the stock market can issue tons and tons of new shares to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into paper go…

Actually the opposite thing happens in the stock market. The shareholders vote on the board of directors and the board of directors pay the CEO mostly based on the stock price going up. One way they do that is buying back shares. Another way is buy making money via positive cashflow and giving dividends to the share holders.

Bitcoin has negative cashflow, the only way it goes up is by more people putting money into it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Picasso paintings also have negative cashflow when you account for storage and security of the art. The only way a Picasso goes up in value is if more people with more money want to buy one. It is unfair to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme because no one calls a Picasso a Ponzi scheme.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#207
post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

that's how i felt about social networking. People posting their breakfast, ridiculous. Baby pictures, silly. Cat pictures, kids these days. Yet somehow the vanity/reality show is making billions 10 years later

I remember how Hacker News laughed at Facebook during its IPO. Hacker News are also against Google, TikTok, Snap, Instagram all the time.

Investing against the popular opinions of Hacker News is an easy way to get rich.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#208
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the data belongs to an individual consumer, the data must actually be deleted at the customer’s request to comply with GDPR and CCPA.

A great theory but in practice in this specific case the legal system will be forced to capitulate. Either a country has to ban all crypto mining or not enforce GDPR on chain nodes. Seems obvious which way it will land in the long run.

didn't china already ban mining lmao

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#209
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal. I've heard this called a "pee in the pool attack." Block chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin have one intrinsic defense: they don't support very large data objects. So that makes inserting CP problematic. But someone determined enough and willing to spend…

How about cases where there's not much data involved but it's still questionable whether or not the data is legal to share? Leaked encryption keys for example come to mind, but I'm sure there's other examples.

Has there been a case of an encryption key successfully being censored?

They tried to censor the blu-ray key, but that survived 3 years before bitcoin was invented

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#210
post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

The thing I think driving Bitcoin is that all the other assets that can absorb billions of dollars in liquidity are throughly manipulated. A trillion dollars goes into Sovereign Debt. The government can issue endless sovereign debt to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into the stock market. The companies on the stock market can issue tons and tons of new shares to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into paper go…

Bitcoin can be shorted.

Bitcoin prints money ( eg tether)

Bitcoin just doesn't work. It's centralized now to fix it's issues.

Best of all, none is regulated and the whales hold the power. Even more in the future with proof of stake.

There is more dilution and misunderstanding with crypto in general then I've ever seen.

Post reply on HN