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

31–40 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#31

Post by cowtools »

lekevicius wrote: post #9

P2P is a big component of blockchains. The "expensive" part is competition for the limited capacity in global consensus (block space), which is necessary if you want to interact with global systems that deal with high value objects. Blockchains can't exist without P2P, but P2P is not sufficient. There are plenty of use cases that require global consensus, and that part is expensive.

Sure, but you would think that P2P is mostly sufficient for a social media replacement (e.g. PeerTube, Mastodon, etc.).

Consensus is only really nessisary for solving problems like payments or namespacing (e.g. namecoin)

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#32

Post by bpeebles »

web4 wrote: post #17
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.

web3 is not "pay for every click." value prop is disintermediation and decentralization. like purchasing a game asset, and not having it tied only to your iOS or Steam account.

It's just as easy for a game developer to say "eh we're no longer using that blockchain for game assets" or otherwise make your "purchase" (which isn't really a purchase) unusable with a blockchain based solution as it is with current Steam/iOS-based systems. (Probably easier, really.)

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#33

Post by littlestymaar »

somezero wrote: post #8

Sure! It’s P2P, but doesn’t need centralized certificate authorities (= Has some Sybil resistance)

> doesn’t need centralized certificate authorities (= Has some Sybil resistance)

What link do you make between Sybil attacks and centralized authorities? And btw the only decentralized sybil resistance component to blockchain things was proof of work, which is being deprecated by most people who believe Web3 is a thing (which afaik Bitcoiners don't).

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#34

Post by can16358p »

_glass wrote: post #20

site is down for me. would have been better hosted on ipfs :)

And anyone hosting it, verifiable implicitly by the content hash, could be paid a small amount of some token.

But oh wait, crypto is only for illegal things sorry. /s

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#35

Post by kkielhofner »

Karunamon wrote: post #12
web4 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can point MetaMask to a different RPC endpoint or your own local node. it is like suggesting BitTorrent is centralized tech because many users download torrents on a centralized website. most NFTs (of value) are using IPFS or Arweave not a URL.

IPFS only enables decentralization, it doesn't guarantee it. I'd be willing to bet most NFT content is only pinned by the exchange.

Most NFT content is hosted with HTTP(s).

Many NFTs that reference an IPFS url point to a specific IPFS gateway run by the creator as opposed to a “standard” IPFS url with ipfs://

I know this because I have a product that indexes various blockchains and the referenced content.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#36

Post by Xorlev »

przeor wrote: post #26
lalaland1125 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? The same value as most other P2P software: illegal activity. Web3 in particular is very useful for running online casinos and ponzi schemes. Note that there is huge potential there for a ton of profit. Casinos make a ton of money.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't think your parent comment mentioned social security. Kind of off-topic, don't you think?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#37

Post by moolcool »

aardvarkr wrote: post #29
moolcool wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's right. Using decentralized protocols doesn't necessarily imply decentralized authority or use of those protocols. Skype used to be P2P, and the mothership would still push updates to end users to ensure everyone was using the correct protocol. Decentralized protocols do create some technical challenges, but they also alleviate others (scaling, for example). Even when that's not the case, like wit…

You’re missing the forest for the trees… Skype is a corporate product run and owned by a single entity that is free to change their tech however they please. Something like email, a federated and distributed communication protocol, is incredibly slow to change because the stakeholders are numerous and the protocol is entrenched. You point to DHT as a game changer, and yet that protocol was invented in 2005 and took o…

> You’re missing the forest for the trees

No, I'm saying that trees do not exist exclusively in forests. A protocol does not have to be federated in order to be decentralized.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#39

Post by trainsarebetter »

Karunamon wrote: post #12
web4 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can point MetaMask to a different RPC endpoint or your own local node. it is like suggesting BitTorrent is centralized tech because many users download torrents on a centralized website. most NFTs (of value) are using IPFS or Arweave not a URL.

IPFS only enables decentralization, it doesn't guarantee it. I'd be willing to bet most NFT content is only pinned by the exchange.

i think that’s the point.

if effective storage proofs ever become a thing, then the later half (decentralized storage) will be standard

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#40

Post by lekevicius »

cowtools wrote: post #31
lekevicius wrote: post #9

P2P is a big component of blockchains. The "expensive" part is competition for the limited capacity in global consensus (block space), which is necessary if you want to interact with global systems that deal with high value objects. Blockchains can't exist without P2P, but P2P is not sufficient. There are plenty of use cases that require global consensus, and that part is expensive.

Sure, but you would think that P2P is mostly sufficient for a social media replacement (e.g. PeerTube, Mastodon, etc.). Consensus is only really nessisary for solving problems like payments or namespacing (e.g. namecoin)

For sure! Until we can figure out how to make global consensus ridiculously scalable, I don't see "web3 social" being successful at all. It's using a very expensive resource for a frivolous need.
Post reply on HN