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

301–310 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#301

Post by jyturley »

Bajeezus wrote: post #297
status200 wrote: post #294

So many people miss the point of blockchains that they forget that there is an actual utility for immutable ledgers, that is, to make sure funds (e.g. taxes) go to the places that they are claimed to be going to. Right now we pay our taxes and that's that - we don't even have a way to confirm that it is going to the extremely bloated military-industrial complex in the way the budget is written. Will the government ev…

"Will the government ever allow something like that?" It's not that they won't allow it, its that its largely useless. The dollar is fungible. Who cares if a dollar spent on a new M1 Abrams was "your dollar", its identical to everyone else's dollar, so everyone else's dollar could have substituted yours. What benefit would knowing that possibly provide?

OP is not talking about fungibility, but accountability. Web3 technology can provide transparency to see and verify that money is allocated in all the ways the entity said it would.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#302

Post by rglullis »

adbachman wrote: post #286
rglullis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substitute "digital hats" for "exclusive contract with the star player on FIFA Football Manager", or "a mine that produces unobtanium on a blockchain version of minecraft" And yes, I am not much of a gamer so these examples might sound super silly today. But 25 years ago the idea of people making a living by collecting and selling items on WoW would also be met with general skepticism, so we never know what the futur…

You named two examples that only make sense in a centralized platform world. FIFA licensing will always be a thing and collecting and selling WoW gear / accounts only worked because other people wanted to play WoW that badly. Both work because they're tied to a platform, not in spite of being tied to a platform.

It's amazing how unimaginative people are when they are biased against the innovation. The examples I gave were only to bring an analogy. Of course the next version of FIFA FM won't be licensed by FIFA. We are talking about a world without intermediaries. Star players would themselves be creating blockchain avatars that could be tied to their real-world performance. Fantasy Sports already exist, web3 just removes middlemen and make existing mechanics possible.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#303

Post by rhn_mk1 »

Animats wrote: post #290
jillesvangurp wrote: post #146

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. I can make video calls with meets, facebook, whatsapp, signal, slack, etc. Not a big deal. I even still have Skype somewhere and it still works even though they ripped out the p2p bits ages ago. I'm not sure what web3 is o…

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

Notably, GPON is not symmetrical.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#304

Post by rglullis »

adbachman wrote: post #288
rglullis wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will not disrupt with the assets. They will disrupt it with the new game engines , and they are already backed by billions from VCs and the money from NFT speculators. There is a reason that Valve is not too fond of crypto, and it is not "climate change".

> There is a reason that Valve is not too fond of crypto Because, like with third party Counter-Strike knife skin sites, it always devolves into money laundering and illegal gambling. Only in an ecosystem like cryptocurrency that exists for those purposes does it make sense.

Right, the fact that they would lose control over the distribution channel has nothing to do with it. It is only because they are oh-so concerned with "money laundering".

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#305

Post by enos_feedler »

Animats wrote: post #290
jillesvangurp wrote: post #146

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. I can make video calls with meets, facebook, whatsapp, signal, slack, etc. Not a big deal. I even still have Skype somewhere and it still works even though they ripped out the p2p bits ages ago. I'm not sure what web3 is o…

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

i do think this trend is happening and will unlock some use cases. Not sure about P2P though. One reason I switched to home 5G is because i can get 40 mbps up for $25, where I needed to pay $100 to comcast for similar up speed. My main use case is streaming my playstation 4 remotely so I can play on the go.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#306

Post by threeseed »

Animats wrote: post #290
jillesvangurp wrote: post #146

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. I can make video calls with meets, facebook, whatsapp, signal, slack, etc. Not a big deal. I even still have Skype somewhere and it still works even though they ripped out the p2p bits ages ago. I'm not sure what web3 is o…

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

You still need to solve the Wifi router issue.

Automatically exposing ports is very flaky and doing so manually is way beyond the understanding of almost anyone.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#307

Post by threeseed »

username923409 wrote: post #300
Kwpolska wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, it might be more feasible. But is it really necessary? What actual benefits to users could more P2P bring?

Reliability could be improved if all required functionality is P2P, as the program would not need to rely on a third party server. Of course, this assumes that the party/parties on the other end of the P2P connection are online, which is the downside of all P2P services. Another underrated benefit of P2P (if implemented in good faith) is that the users will have peace of mind with regards to the ownership of their da…

Except that it is rarely a single third party server. Every semi-popular website will be highly available.

And with the popularity of the cloud it has made it available across data centres and even regions.

So it is debatable whether P2P is more reliable than centralised.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#308

Post by Micoloth »

threeseed wrote: post #306
Animats wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

You still need to solve the Wifi router issue. Automatically exposing ports is very flaky and doing so manually is way beyond the understanding of almost anyone.

Honest question. Why did this happen?

I mean how could it happen that such a basic utility as the router was developed with such fundamental design flaws that hosting a webserver at home is above the skills of 99% of people?

There’s a router in every home anywhere now, so this is a fact we’ll have to deal with for decades.

I’m pretty young so i was not around at the time. How did it come about?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#309

Post by threeseed »

chrisco255 wrote: post #142
ehutch79 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not like you can use assets/data from one website in another, unless it's something like a jpg... in which case it's not like you can't just upload that jpg You'd need everyone to agree to the same standard for stuff. Definitely more likely than game assets, but still incredibly unlikely

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. Meanwhile, any digital content or rights can be represented by an NFT. Is it useful to own the commercial rights to use a pop…

> How can I follow the same people on Twitter and Reddit and Discord and Playstation Network

Web3/NFT etc doesn't solve this though.

Where is the list of followers going to be stored ? It isn't on chain.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#310

Post by Gigachad »

Micoloth wrote: post #308
threeseed wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still need to solve the Wifi router issue. Automatically exposing ports is very flaky and doing so manually is way beyond the understanding of almost anyone.

Honest question. Why did this happen? I mean how could it happen that such a basic utility as the router was developed with such fundamental design flaws that hosting a webserver at home is above the skills of 99% of people? There’s a router in every home anywhere now, so this is a fact we’ll have to deal with for decades. I’m pretty young so i was not around at the time. How did it come about?

It was NAT. We ran out of v4 addresses and self hosting / p2p became much harder. And now many iot devices depend on Nat existing as some kind of security measure.

But largely no one cares because you wouldn’t want to host any real website at home anyway. It’s extremely cheap and reliable to just rent a VPS.

Post reply on HN