31–40 of 636 posts
Here's a much more level-headed(and detailed) analysis of what is interesting, and not-so-interesting, about "web3":
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…
I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet. Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have cryp…
Again, I’m still skeptical about most of this stuff, but this one thing seems like a pretty good and somewhat practical idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto proponents are in favor of there being no technical restrictions that prevent such content being posted. An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto proponents are in favor of there being no technical restrictions that prevent such content being posted. An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal.
> 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…
Leaked encryption keys for example come to mind, but I'm sure there's other examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sign-In with Ethereum" will be huge. I purposefully avoid "Sign-in with Google" because putting too much power in a centralized authority terrifies me. I'd much rather have the convenience of "Sign-In with X" but backed by something I have control over.
What's the recovery if your private Ethereum key gets deleted, or worse, stolen? If you're signing in via some other 3rd party, you can change your password. I'm just trying to think of how "Sign in with Ethereum" would work if you're trying to get your technophobic grandma that clicks on phishing links and responds to the County Password Inspectors [0] when they call to use it. [0] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Right, and that's why the physical art analogy breaks down. Was just trying to come up with a slightly better physical art analogy. Copies are possible, forgeries are possible, and provenance is a real challenge. However with NFTs it all takes an abusive amount of electricity.
Perhaps in the future if NFTs get some sort of legal backing and therefore more enforced property rights, maybe it'll be different, however I think the analogy works well for now.
Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sign-In with Ethereum" will be huge. I purposefully avoid "Sign-in with Google" because putting too much power in a centralized authority terrifies me. I'd much rather have the convenience of "Sign-In with X" but backed by something I have control over.
IMHO this could be the "killer app" and is something I might actually use if it got sufficient traction and support. OpenID gives a few organizations like Google, Okta, and Microsoft "root on the entire world." It terrifies me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you need to pay someone to deploy the program?
On the testnet you can get free ETH to deploy contract(s).
Recently I've been working at converting an existing web business to web3 (at least my interpretation of web3), with the goal of making it all decentralized. My impression at this point is that it's mostly possible but not all that practical.
It might make more sense if I reimagine what the business is, which is part of my exploration here.
RE: Censorship You often see advocates of decentralization hail networks for being pro-immutability, battling censorship. How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around? I'm talking about things like CP, terrorist media, fake news, scams/frauds, and what not.
Ultimately, the relevant question is if the root layer of open data systems should allow erasure. There are good arguments to be had on both sides. If you feel that if we don’t have systems that are fundamentally censorproof, the net result will be an eventual all consuming global censorship regime in the limit given enough time, then there is little choice, however.