Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

271–280 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#271
post #106

I don't like how the extreme hatred toward Web3 has spiraled into "I see no practical application for decentralization". Crypto and blockchain aside, how can you not see the utility in an open firehose database/API without gate keepers? Don't conflate decentralization with blockchain.

It blows my mind how many people keep dismissing decentralization because of problems in the NFT space.

We're not.

We don't need blockchain for decentralization. That's what we're dismissing. Blockchain is a set of cancer cells that have metastasized into the existing zeitgeist surrounding decentralization efforts. It offers nothing, and just poisons our existing work.

Re: Why Web3?

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an article recently which claimed that the majority of transaction volume is not speculation, but scams, fraud and similar. Like e.g. pyramid schemes. And that is where an average football fan needs crypto, to provide more monetary volume for scams and speculators manipulating the marked to siphon of. Or at least that was the take of the article, I'm not completely sure in either direction.

The difference between "speculation" and "scams, fraud, and similar" is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people find all crypto to be a giant scam, others find all of it to be a potential investment (hopefully with the understanding that the long-tail of individual investments in the space will go to zero).

> The difference between "speculation" and "scams, fraud, and similar" is in the eye of the beholder.

The definitions of those terms really comes down to intention: a scammer is selling something they _know_ does not deliver what they're promising while a speculator should be making good-faith claims. This line gets blurry with optimism but most of the cryptocurrency speculation which called out is indeed misrepresentation of what a potential buyer would get, such as claiming that an NFT conveys ownership when it does not.

Re: Why Web3?

#273

I'm not convinced. People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain. DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2"…

DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization"

It may come as a surprise but there are other chains that support DeFi apps and which do not have high gas fees like Ethereum. For example, Avalanche and Solana.

Collateralized crypto loans are the equivalent of people taking loans out on their equity position so they don’t have to pay cap gains and don’t need to Liquidate. So the use case is already demonstrated, it’s just now applied in a crypto world.

Re: Why Web3?

#274

The single important question about web3 is: will it be free? Can app devs just start building without paying the blockchain / network fee? The same for users; can they just use apps for free? If not, the question is: do you pay with data, and go free, or do you pay with real money and prices skyrocketing due to endless speculations?

The author has a famous quote: in the future you’ll have to pay to work. His partner Albert is pushing for the universal basic income. This pictures me a future: a playground for those who willing to pay to work, for the rich, for those pursuing wealth. The rest should rely on the UBI.

I’m ok with that. A win-win for both sides. But let’s finally put the cards on the table.

Re: Why Web3?

#275

The single important question about web3 is: will it be free? Can app devs just start building without paying the blockchain / network fee? The same for users; can they just use apps for free? If not, the question is: do you pay with data, and go free, or do you pay with real money and prices skyrocketing due to endless speculations?

IMO, pay with money. End of story. Expecting services for free got is into this horrible advertising model that turned us into the product rather than customers. There are people promoting gasless, free to use chains. That model is flawed. Financial incentives is what finally made decentralized networks a real thing. For a good explanation as to where we're going with this, read "Who Owns The Future."

Re: Why Web3?

#276
Every commenter in this thread should disclose their web3 holdings as part of their comments.

I have a fairly large doge holding that I mined in the very beginning and haven't felt like dealing with.

Re: Why Web3?

#277
post #219
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because it's a ponzi scheme and they get to get in on the ground floor. See: https://mobile.twitter.com/intangiblecoins/status/1473302581... 2. Because they're rich libertarians who see crypto as a way to protect their assets from the government

The only thing more annoying than libertarian crypto bros is progressives who don’t like crypto because people have made money off it or they see it as inherently right wing technology (the Soviet Union said that about computers originally, you can see how that worked out for them)

Maybe so, but they’re not in this thread.

Criticising the whole shebang as a bunch of charletans pitching snake oil to the gullible isn’t “progressive”, it’s common sense.

Re: Why Web3?

#278

I'm not convinced. People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain. DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2"…

DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization" It may come as a surprise but there are other chains that support DeFi apps and which do not have high gas fees like Ethereum. For example, Avalanche and Solana. Collateralized crypto loans are the equivalent of people taking loans out on their equity position so they don’t have to pay cap gains and don’t need to…

That is not why people take out loans. They do it for leverage and to avoid selling because they want exposure to ETH or BTC. There are easier ways to avoid taxes.

Re: Why Web3?

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some examples of dApp data sharing in the wild: For example if you have Ether, you can use a decentralized exchange (e.g. Uniswap) to swap it to stablecoins like USDC and DAI, deposit that USDC and DAI into a collateralized lending market (e.g. Compound), then deposit your deposit tickets into a stable pair exchange (e.g. Curve) to earn maker fees when others trade against your liquidity, while ALSO earning interest…

Thanks for the examples. The monetary case seems like the natural first step. The name service case seems more interesting. It isn’t a financial instrument, so it demonstrates DAP utility for non-financial application. You referenced a few standards that the DAPs adhere to, which lines up with assumptions I’ve had about the data schema management. In a generalized sense, it seems that community members, or a governin…

Well, decentralized exchanges usually maintain their moat through liquidity (the catch-22 of attracting liquidity to a new dex without users, and attracting users without liquidity).

Ethereum Name Service maintains their moat through legitimacy. You could copy paste the contract and start issuing .eth names of your own, but the ENS team is generally trusted by the community and thus their specific instance of the contract (at their contract address) is already widely integrated into products.

You're right that social media dApps perhaps don't have a "moat" like that, which may be part of why we've seen so many of them blossom and fail, while none of them really catch on like with other types of services. Though that might be just as much due to the fact that social media is a low-value service compared to money transfer, and blockchains just haven't become scalable enough yet for a meaningful part of the social media stack to be run cost-efficiently on the blockchain.

Personally I've always been less sold on cryptocurrency networks as a host for social media, as I believe traditional decentralized web2 schemes like ActivityPub (Mastodon) still have a long way to race in that regard before the scheme needs to be complicated with a blockchain integration.

What I do believe will happen is similar to you explained, where just profile info (and maybe a profile image hash) is stored on the blockchain while other data is stored off-chain. Ethereum Name Service already acts as a profile service in a lot of ways as it already has records for your twitter handle, github handle, etc. as well as support for custom records. One global name standard like ENS would for example allow you to pick your Mastodon profile up and move it seamlessly to another instance, with the authorization of that cross-server move handled by the blockchain.

Re: Why Web3?

#280
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference between a fungible token and a non-fungible token is its fungibility: everything else is the same. The stated use case for both is "I want to know for certain who owns something". A chain of digital signatures fails to satisfy that need. Please stop being so assertive about something you clearly don't know anything about: there are tons of useful complaints about how people are using NFTs, but thi…

A semantic distinction without an actual difference. At the end of the day all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", if you trust the public key of X a signed text file stating "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" gives you identical guarantees to a blockchain NFT stating the same thing. Nothing stops author X from minting a blockchain NFT that states "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" and also…

What blockchains provide is transaction ordering as a service. If Y is an NFT, what prevents that from happening is the code on the blockchain: the same kind of code (literally, on Ethereum) that prevents Y from being a fungible token for a cryptocurrency that they send to two people (aka "double spend").

If Y is not an NFT, but you know the original owner X, and you wish to create an NFT, the same kind of mechanisms work: the first time you attempt to assign ownership is the canonical one. Which you seemed to get up-thread, you just failed to "do the math" to see why digital signatures alone don't support that as you are so sure cryptocurrencies have no value.

If you send two digital signatures to two people claiming they both own something, the big issue is that the second person might not even know the first person exists. You need some kind of mechanism to invalidate the second one by exposing the first one in a trustless global ledger of events.... that's what blockchains provide.

If you only care about the semantics of disputes--which is potentially fair for claims over a physical object: it acts as a kind of "second factor"--you get a long way by just including the entire chain back to the root whenever you transfer ownership, allowing people to show prominence over other chains they obviously dominate...

...but any time there is a conflict--and not just on the original sale!--in your histories you can't compare timestamps to resolve the dispute as you can't trust them: digital signatures cannot show that one thing happened before the other thing as any timestamp is just data being signed, attached by the signer, and is meaningless.

To resolve these conflicts you need to use your distributed ledger to establish that no such signature has been signed previously: you need a way to authoritatively assign prominence. If you have a solution for this, what you have invented is a cryptocurrency and could be used as such (as there is no relevant difference between fungible and non-fungible tokens).

(And note that this is true even if you try to solve this by using some complex web-of trust of a ton of random third-parties or overlapping sets of parties that different people haphazardly might choose to trust instead of a linear blockchain... you are just talking about systems like Holochain or Stellar or Avalanche instead of systems like Bitcoin or Ethereum.)

Post reply on HN