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

Web3 is expensive P2P

netfuture.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#211

Post by the_gastropod »

hanniabu wrote: post #194
the_gastropod wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course you could. Just carrying your identity (even an anon one) between applications alone can be useful. How can I follow the same people on Twitter and Reddit and Discord and Playstation Network? Currently all this is difficult, awkward, etc with the current fragmentation in the market. An email address? Why do we need to complicate this with blockchain tomfoolery?

Not everyone wants their email public

Oh, interesting! Wonder why? Maybe people exist who don't want the same people from Twitter to follow them on Reddit, Youtube, Steam, Spotify, etc. too, eh? Maybe independent isolated logins aren't such a bad thing? Maybe hand-waving about "BLOCKCHAIN" doesn't actually have any solutions to any of these problems that arise from the fact that: different people have different desires. There is no tech solution for reconciling the irreconcilable.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#212

Post by dwaite »

ewzimm wrote: post #25
anonymous0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Is there something specific about TikTok technology/usage pattern paving the way for distopy acceptance or it's just the same concept of facebook/instagram/Twitter but with a younger audience?

I have noticed a cultural difference between different generations of social networks. With Facebook, people usually sought out people and groups that they wanted to connect with and complained about being algorithmically profiled for ads but accepted it as part of the business model. With TikTok, people usually express how much they love the algorithm that finds things that they like.

> With Facebook, people usually sought out people and groups that they wanted to connect with and complained about being algorithmically profiled for ads but accepted it as part of the business model.

Google's success with ads is that they were able to trigger them as part of user action. Paid search results are hypothetically helpful to some people. Contextual ads on a site may actually provide value if they are on-topic.

Facebook ads mostly target people. They don't really provide any in-context value, they are pure commercials - spooky commercials that know what is going on in your life, although the ability to utilize this information is often laughably bad.

Twitter often has the same problems. Ads interspersed within conversations just aren't helpful or desired.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#213

Post by blawson »

Feriti wrote: post #89
axg11 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some benefits that I think web3 can bring to the user: - Universal login: An alternative to "Sign in with Google/Apple/XYZ" that can't be denied by a corporation. There are countless examples of these companies deactivating accounts for questionable reasons. - Permissionless composability: I'm not sure how to word this one better. If a developer wants to build on top of blockchain data, they can. No need to apply for…

And who else will then operate the web3 infrastructure? Instead of the Security team at Google, their ddos service and OnCall experts we have whom now? Some miners? Perfectly written Blockchain code? You sound like those things are just free.

Speaking of which…

https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-pages-on-ipfs/

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#214

Post by przeor »

arinlen wrote: post #92
przeor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> How about poniz schemes ran by governments ? You are ok with that kind of exploitation ? I don't understand what kind of argument you were aiming at. Even if your "government ponzi scheme" non-sequitur is taken at face value, what's your point exactly? Do you expect that a type of fraud becomes acceptable if you manage to point out other types of fraud?

simple, if there are no more participants in a govt systems like social security or people dont want to use govt backed money, then it's value will collapse in a one way or another.

It means that people who are left in the system are screwed like in any ponzi like systems.

P.S. Thanks for downvotes HN on my orginal comment

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#215

Post by agentultra »

wmf wrote: post #200
agentultra wrote: post #122

I'll just leave this here [0] I don't disagree that the concentration of web architecture into the hands of a small number of big corps is a bad thing. I just don't see the solution being a purely technical one. There are market forces and reasons for that consolidation: efficiency in terms of power; production, acquisition, and deployment of expensive equipment; high-availability of services, operations and staff, e…

We need economic incentives... That's the whole point of Web3. Unfortunately the incentives as currently designed are relatively simplistic and seem to go wrong more often than they go right, but the idea is there.

Given the track record of the web3 community in regulating itself, preventing fraud and corruption, and even building a tech stack that can be trusted... I don't think we should place a single bit of faith in their ability to align incentives with the kinds I'm talking about.

The kinds of economic incentives I'm talking about come from industry experts working with democratically elected officials with a system of government that is concerned with the rights and freedoms of a society to have access to technology and infrastructure for the benefit of everyone. The kind of Keynesian approach to economics rather than the Austrian school (which has shown itself to implode and fail and enrich the few at the cost of the freedoms of the many, less fortunate).

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#216

Post by [deleted] »

remram wrote: post #202
masklinn wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing wrong with p2p. The article doesn't imply (let alone say) that there's anything wrong with p2p? To the extent that it says anything positive about p2p, it's rather positive. Unless you're one of those americans for whom "communist" reflexively aliases to "bad" I guess?

>> Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. > you're one of those americans for whom "communist" ... The GP is making some comment about the technical merits of P2P which segues naturally from the article. You can agree, you can disagree, but I really don't know what just did.

[deleted]

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#217

Post by ItsMonkk »

somezero wrote: post #82
ItsMonkk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. > This paper shows that the situation with BFT CRDTs is very different from BFT consensus: it is possible to guarantee the standard CRDT consistency properties even in systems in which arbitrarily many nodes are Byzantine, e.g. where the Byzantine nodes outnumber the correct nodes. This makes the algorithms immune to Sybil attacks, allowing them to be deployed in open P2P systems that anybody can join, with…

I’m not saying his paper is wrong or not up to the workshop quality. But he’s saying something against an easy-to-prove impossibility theorem in a seriously sloppy/hand-wavy way. I trust Doceur and the entire early 2000s literature more than his paper. But who knows, I might be wrong. P.S. Also commented about the paper here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30561786

His more recent paper on the move operation[0] goes into some of the details further and while I don't fully understand it myself, the claims he makes along with the proof assistant nature he uses to work through them are fairly compelling.

The simple intuition is that because his CRDT's are associative and everyone else is not using associative data types, he simplifies the space and the impossible becomes possible.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30811072

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#218

Post by withinboredom »

Shish2k wrote: post #141
birracerveza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not web3. Web3 should feel no different to the end user than web2, except for the fact they "sign in" via their wallet (Metamask) instead of legacy login mechanisms (Username+password or Google/FB sign ins). Users shouldn't even pay for gas. Look at orbis.club for an early example of proper web3. What we saw up until now is not "true" web3, but simply web2 masquerading as such and using web3 as a marketing buz…

> Web3 should feel no different to the end user than web2, except for the fact they "sign in" via their wallet Ok but we’ve had this technology for decades and nobody cares. Why is doing this via the blockchain suddenly going to make it work?

When I see a product that is web3 but I don’t even know it’s web3, I’ll take it seriously. It’s like everyone talking about how MeteorJS is better than vanilla js, you just have to rewrite your app. It’s all hype.

React was “just better” than everything else, and flexible. There was hype, for sure. But you’d only discover React by investigating a company’s stack.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#219

Post by web41 »

kkielhofner wrote: post #198
web41 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can run an Ethereum node without running a full node. agree IPFS client is pretty janky but the idea of content addressable p2p hosting is not a bad thing. the goal of these base systems is not to be faster or easier to use than a centralized Amazon server. the goal is resistance to centralized control. mod note: my other account “web4” is rate limited after a couple comments?

Yes you can but sync time is still a problem, even today with the minuscule transaction rates supported on most chains. There will likely be advancements there but this is obviously a hard problem as we're already over a decade in with this technology and it has yet to be solved with any kind of approach that can still claim being fully secure and decentralized. What I'm really trying to point out is that the vast ma…

centralization is not a bad thing - a lot of NFT websites exist that are centralized and curate and moderate the data on the public ledger to give a better UX for users. there can be multiple of these websites that co-exist - like how you can visit different book shops that sell the same product.

the core issue of web2 is that users are locking value into walled gardens run by singular corporations. if the corporation changes like Elon buying Twitter, the users have no power to escape. the same is not true in a web3 app where users can (and probably already are) operate on the shared data across a variety of platforms.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#220

Post by sleepybrett »

Asooka wrote: post #79
andsoitis wrote: post #3

> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…

I wouldn't say that P2P never became mainstream. BitTorrent is still huge and a great way to share media with each other. The reason it's not mainstream is because without centralisation, you can't enforce copyright and DRM. If sharing movies with friends was legal, P2P platforms would sprout like mushrooms after rain. I personally think, perhaps foolishly, that if we decriminalise nonprofit filesharing and at the sa…

Most bittorrent traffic is bootstrapped by centralized trackers.
Post reply on HN