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

Welcome to Web 3.0

welcome2web3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#281

Post by can16358p »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #267
can16358p wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just with everything with potential revolutionary impact, it will be hated with harsh criticism. We're exactly at that period with web3: haters gonna hate and early adopters will be rewarded.

> haters gonna hate This is a thought terminating idea, as much as I like TS. There is a good reason why people dislike it. Maybe consider understanding their points

Well I wrote it all after seeing all the "good reason"s of people disliking it. I've been into crypto for almost 9 years and saw good and the bad sides of it, and result: I see no real reason for hating crypto other than missing the boat.

Criticizing is okay, there's a lot to criticize about crypto. But I see a rush of hatestorm on crypto everyday here on HN which I frankly think pointless.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#282

Post by can16358p »

falcolas wrote: post #222
sidibe wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With no authority that decides whether I can send money to/receive from someone. There's no technical reason fiat money doesn't have this property. But societies everywhere, democratic or authoritarian, have decided that's a bad idea and have money laundering laws.

AND have started the mechanisms to bring bitcoin transactions under these laws. It started (in the US) with the IRS taxing bitcoins as they would material wealth. And why wouldn't they?

Well that's terrible and should be stopped.

Digital assets shouldn't be controlled by authority as long as you aren't converting it to fiat. Then, (while I still don't support it, I get it) I understand if IRS takes a portion when you convert it to USD. But that should be all about it.

Crypto "world" should have a separate line with fiat world and fiat-controlling authorities shouldn't have any power there as long as someone doesn't convert their crypto to fiat.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#283

Post by sidibe »

can16358p wrote: post #282
falcolas wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AND have started the mechanisms to bring bitcoin transactions under these laws. It started (in the US) with the IRS taxing bitcoins as they would material wealth. And why wouldn't they?

Well that's terrible and should be stopped. Digital assets shouldn't be controlled by authority as long as you aren't converting it to fiat. Then, (while I still don't support it, I get it) I understand if IRS takes a portion when you convert it to USD. But that should be all about it. Crypto "world" should have a separate line with fiat world and fiat-controlling authorities shouldn't have any power there as long as…

Why should it? If crypto became popular there wouldn't be tax revenue

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#284

Post by can16358p »

acdha wrote: post #209
can16358p wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. A "free" internet. Not in terms of money, but in terms of freedom of speech without censorship and a controlling authority. With no authority that decides whether I can send money to/receive from someone. Especially living in a corrupt authoratarian system, even only those two outweight all the bad sides (tx fees, scalability, PoW environmental effects) for me. It does more good than it harms in the big picture…

> Especially living in a corrupt authoratarian system, even only those two outweight all the bad sides (tx fees, scalability, PoW environmental effects) for me. It does more good than it harms in the big picture. More accurately, it could if it actually worked but since it doesn't all you're doing is paying more for lower quality of service. A key concept to understand is that when blockchain sales people say “no aut…

I could perfectly think of a scenario where there is an anonymously deployed "faucet" contract with some logic that distributes its coins to various L2 protocols or maybe some form of future shards, and enables people to interact with that contract's currency on those upper protocols whereas anyone can claim those coins by only paying gas. And anyone could participate anonymously by doing a little mining over VPN/Tor in a pool with a freshly generated wallet for a little Ether that can be used for gas, and again submit their transactions containing any speech they like using again VPN/Tor and not interacting with those wallets with any KYC-enabled exchange.

Sure, gas fees aren't that low to cover with "a little mining" but I'm sure there will be a middle ground between with more gas available for anonymous posting and optimizing gas use for these actions, with some volunteers over the world incentivizing free speech contract interaction with lower gas fees just like people volunteering to participate in Tor network.

While we're not there yet, I see it very hard to trace any transactions that way.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#285

Post by rich_sasha »

miracle2k wrote: post #234
rich_sasha wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only somewhat I think; miners actually do have such control, and could be coerced into sanctions; it's just that no one has successfully done that (or kept quiet about it). You can imagine outlawing processing some crypto transactions in some area. Miners have no choice but to comply, leading to at least a fork and massive confusion, at most to actual enforcement of the rule. Blockchains may be censorship-resistant,…

> You can imagine outlawing processing some crypto transactions in some area. Miners have no choice but to comply, leading to at least a fork and massive confusion, at most to actual enforcement of the rule. It is not a geo-location issue. The enforcement measures in question either manage to control 50% of the hashrate or they don't. If they don't, the protocol will ignore their censorship. Yes, they could continue…

Since China ban, 35% of mining happens on US soils: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/after-chinas-crypto-ban-who...

Not so far off 50+eps

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#286

Post by acdha »

can16358p wrote: post #284
acdha wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially living in a corrupt authoratarian system, even only those two outweight all the bad sides (tx fees, scalability, PoW environmental effects) for me. It does more good than it harms in the big picture. More accurately, it could if it actually worked but since it doesn't all you're doing is paying more for lower quality of service. A key concept to understand is that when blockchain sales people say “no aut…

I could perfectly think of a scenario where there is an anonymously deployed "faucet" contract with some logic that distributes its coins to various L2 protocols or maybe some form of future shards, and enables people to interact with that contract's currency on those upper protocols whereas anyone can claim those coins by only paying gas. And anyone could participate anonymously by doing a little mining over VPN/Tor…

> again submit their transactions containing any speech they like using again VPN/Tor and not interacting with those wallets with any KYC-enabled exchange.

That last part seems like the key challenge to me: what you described isn't cheap and it only works to the extent that you can do business with people who aren't following KYC. That makes it more likely that the entire service will be tainted because the non-trivial cost means that people aren't going to use it if they don't need to.

The other problem is that durable records are inherently risky. Your use of such a system isn't just a question of whether someone can see the transactions immediately but whether it'll retroactively become de-anonymized — the public blockchains are right out there but if you're trying to use a private L2 system you now have another party you're placing a lot of trust in — not unlike the questions about how you'd be able to trust a VPN provider or Tor nodes not logging your traffic.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#287

Post by rvz »

samhw wrote: post #250
rvz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There you go. Cryptocurrencies are here to stay no matter how much they hate it or continue to waste time on repeating the same old arguments even though there are far better cryptocurrencies out there that already exist. The fact that they are unable to ignore them and continue to spread the same debunked nonsense tells you that it is not going away and it is getting boring. Just look at the first few sentences: > a…

> The internet isn't new. Its 'killer app' (The world wide web) came decades afterwards and took decades more for adoption. The Internet started in the mid 1980s and became available to consumers in about '89[0]. The WWW was created in '90. By '94 it was wildly popular. Netscape IPOed the next year, with millions of users. Generously, you could call that about 5 years from public availability to cultural dominance. B…

Not one time in my sentence did I ever mention about Bitcoin. That one has already failed in being 'electronic cash' and it is now used as 'digital gold'. Not its intended purpose. The others that I mentioned have a much better future of being a 'digital cash' technology if used with a stablecoin.

> But people like you are hurting it, not helping it.

How exactly?

> We need rational discussion that can soberly evaluate the flaws of a given implementation, not unthinking heavily-emotionalised tribalism.

I have just counter argued my points made with real examples and evidence and the only person arguing with emotion are the creators of the 'Welcome to Web 3.0' page. And yes, I can even critique the aforementioned cryptocurrencies since every technology still always has it issues.

But just don't repeat the same arguments that I have just refuted. It is boring and I am only interested in looking for new criticisms. All my earlier points and questions about it being, slow, 'destroying the planet', etc still remain unchallenged.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#288

Post by acdha »

miracle2k wrote: post #251
acdha wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worked as long as nobody was trying to go after it. That's been changing and as we've seen the parties involved have plenty of real-world presence which various authorities have been able to take advantage of. This is why the absolute claims about “free speech” are simply reflecting a deeper misunderstanding: it's true that nobody can stop you from making a Bitcoin transaction unless they block the protocol entire…

> It worked as long as nobody was trying to go after it. That's been changing I see no evidence of this. Authorities have been going after crypto-currencies users very effectively ever since the early days of Bitcoin; from the first darknet market takedowns, to arresting people on LocalBitcoins because they didn't register as money transmitters. It sounds like we agree on the limitations of a ledger, but saying it "d…

It's true that encryption is useful despite not being perfect but there's an important bit of missing context: blockchain systems are being sold as suitable protection for people “living in a corrupt authoratarian system” and that changes the risk calculations considerably.

If you live in a relatively open democracy, the knowledge that your encrypted chat app could be attacked by the police isn't a huge deal because there's a legal process protecting you but that trade off changes considerably if you are at risk from a hostile government. Systems which require you to leave a public paper-trail for the authorities, for example, are too risky to consider and something more privacy oriented is still a significant gamble — especially since in such an environment it's likely that you'd be at risk simply having it installed on your devices unless you were certain that it made no identifiable network activity. If I lived in China now, for example, I would not want to risk having something like a VPN client or Signal installed on my phone if the police stopped me or started linking DNS lookups to ISP customers.

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#289

Post by usrbinbash »

can16358p wrote: post #280
Double_a_92 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't just hate for the sake of hating. They see flaws and react to them... While some people just tell them not to worry about them because "they will be rewarded".

You think I don't see the flaws? I've been seeing all the Ponzis, P&D groups, shitcoins/memecoins, inflated prices around NFTs for the sake of flipping, scam ICOs and rug pulls, yields and stakes and the unfulfillable promises, and most importantly environmental impact of PoW. Yet I still think benefits and the potential impact (which is not theoretical, just needing a bit more mass adoption to take off) greatly outw…

What benefits are those exactly?

Re: Welcome to Web 3.0

#290

Post by usrbinbash »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #60
thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #28

I don’t know how web3 will be built but I know that web4 will involve donkeys and smoke signals.

Carrier pigeons too, there's already a RFC for it: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2549 TCP/IP over smoke signals would make a great RFC in a couple weeks. ;)

> TCP/IP over smoke signals

I like the idea, I'm just worried about the CO2 released.

Then again, if the alternative is tons of bird-cr&! everywhere, it may be the better way.

Post reply on HN