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

Web3? I have my DAOts

networked.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#311

Post by lngnmn2 »

It seems that we degraded to the stage of theoretical technology (not to be confused with theoretical computer science) with pure abstract bullshit terminology and "models". The utter bullshit like in the last Friedman's Wolfram podcast (there is no multiple threads of time lmao).

This reminds me of literally years of Chainlink (scam) abstract bullshit (no wonder the guy studied abstract philosophy).

Musk was right with his cartoon tweet - this crap has no real demand. Web3 not needed.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#312

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Animats wrote: post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

> Remember, all this stuff is zero-sum. For every winner, there has to be a loser.

That's not how it works.

Suppose Bitcoin comes into existence and people mine a billion dollars worth of it. They now have a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin. Nobody else has lost anything.

If they sell the Bitcoin and someone else buys it, the buyer hasn't lost anything. They had $100 worth of cash and now they have $100 worth of Bitcoin. Provided the price is stable, their net worth doesn't change. If the price goes up, they make money. If the price goes down, they lose money. That part is zero sum, but the initial mining still created the value that it created.

It would only be zero-sum if Bitcoin goes to zero. Not just 5% of where it is now, actually zero. Because otherwise it would still have created whatever non-zero asset value people still ascribe to it.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#313

Post by boc »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #247
NicoJuicy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin can be shorted. Bitcoin prints money ( eg tether) Bitcoin just doesn't work. It's centralized now to fix it's issues. Best of all, none is regulated and the whales hold the power. Even more in the future with proof of stake. There is more dilution and misunderstanding with crypto in general then I've ever seen.

What is Tethers relationship to Bitcoin? I thought they had their own coin.

One Tether is the supposed to be = to one USD which is supposed to be in Tether's bank account somewhere. They have like 16 people total and are based in a mailbox in the Caribbean and nobody in the commercial paper markets have heard of them, despite them being one of the largest buyers in the world (in theory). Their "audits" aren't really audits and there's a ton of sketchiness with the firm they chose last time they ran one.

In practice they basically use their trusted position within an exchange (as the 1-to-1 representation of a US dollar) and simply create new Tethers from thin air, move them to an exchange, buy BTC, pump the price, and essentially act as a stabilizer whenever the price starts tanking. For instance they've printed over $2 Billion worth of Tether since Saturday, with absolutely no evidence that real people actually put $2B into exchanges to buy crypto.

It's an amazing scam since anytime it looks like the floor is about to fall out, they print billions more and keep their position alive by pumping crypto back up.

Anyways the reason it's important is because Tether and other stablecoins are supposed to be the fiat offramp in the event that you want to withdraw money from an exchange. After all, to buy BTC you really first bought Tether (or USDC) and then traded your tether for BTC a minute later. So all of the hard cash in the exchange is supposed to be represented by Tether... guess what happens when people realize their cash isn't actually there 1-to-1 like it was promised? Massive liquidity crises and all cryptocurrency falls 90%+.

Be careful my friend.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#314

Post by chpmrc »

rideontime wrote: post #203
chpmrc wrote: post #70

> NFTs prove neither ownership nor uniqueness Except that's literally what they do, using a combination of digital signatures and timestamp. You can have a copy of the same NFT even on a different chain but the timestamp will be higher, therefore proving it's not the original. Plus the problem of referencing the content is solved by having all data on chain (likely on layer 2). Recurring problems in the world of art…

> Ironically that's exactly because the artwork was not (referenced) on chain. If that was the case any subsequent copy would not be recognized as the original because of the timestamp and wouldn't have nearly the same value. So the solution is that every artist mints every piece they create before showing it to anybody else. All because somebody decided that a "blockchain" is now what determines who created a piece…

The same can very well happen in the real world. I see an artwork online, upload it to my portfolio and claim it's mine. There are then many ways one can prove they are the original author and minting an NFT is just an easier one (assuming the claim doesn't get invalidated off chain).

Otherwise it's like dismissing NFTs and not minting your own but then getting upset someone did it on your behalf. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#315

Post by AnthonyMouse »

narrator wrote: post #164
Animats wrote: post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

The thing I think driving Bitcoin is that all the other assets that can absorb billions of dollars in liquidity are throughly manipulated. A trillion dollars goes into Sovereign Debt. The government can issue endless sovereign debt to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into the stock market. The companies on the stock market can issue tons and tons of new shares to dilute that. A trillion dollars goes into paper go…

> A trillion dollars goes into bitcoin, the price just goes up and there's no dilution.

Isn't someone just going to create a Bitcoin-denominated derivative or fractional reserve bank, assuming that hasn't already happened?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#316

Post by dmitriid »

vvpan wrote: post #120
vagabund wrote: post #105

It's disingenuous for the author to present instances where some level of trusted actors is required in the near-term to make a service operational as voiding any claim of decentralization; obviously, the centralization of a network exists on a spectrum and where it's present in Web3 tech it's almost invariably more limited in scope than the centralization of their Web2.0 counterparts. Likewise his claim that APIs re…

Arguments about blockchain here on HN are frustrating. There are plenty of good examples of where it works very well but the mental gymnastic people go through to deny the obvious are incredible. The most basic to me is the Automatic Market Maker system. For example Uniswap is a system with only a few (relatively speaking) lines of a code at its core and a team of a couple of dozen. The system does billions of dollar…

> There are plenty of good examples of where it works

And yet, no one can provide even a single one that

- doesn't already exist, and works more efficiently without blockchain, or

- doesn't require blockchain for any of the claimed properties and advantages

- isn't relying on circular references

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#317

Post by account-5 »

thebean11 wrote: post #19
api wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

At that point you'd need additional data (which transactions) and software in order to stitch things back together, at which point is it the (disjointed, seemingly random) data that's illegal, or the instruction set that allows you to assemble it into something illegal?

If it was the disjointed seemingly random data that was illegal I think that would make the number π illegal too.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#318

Post by maccolgan »

UncleMeat wrote: post #59
serverholic wrote: post #5

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 is the difference between "Sign-in with Ethereum" and the signature-based auth that has been available for decades without blockchains?

You can't assign value or tokens to public keys without a blockchain, we've come full circle.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#319

Post by librish »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #312
Animats wrote: post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

> Remember, all this stuff is zero-sum. For every winner, there has to be a loser. That's not how it works. Suppose Bitcoin comes into existence and people mine a billion dollars worth of it. They now have a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin. Nobody else has lost anything. If they sell the Bitcoin and someone else buys it, the buyer hasn't lost anything. They had $100 worth of cash and now they have $100 worth of Bitc…

The point is that for every dollar someone takes out of the crypto eco-system someone else has to put one in. With miners taking their own cut that means the game is actually negative sum for normal people trading in crypto currencies.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#320

Post by KingMachiavelli »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #312
Animats wrote: post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

> Remember, all this stuff is zero-sum. For every winner, there has to be a loser. That's not how it works. Suppose Bitcoin comes into existence and people mine a billion dollars worth of it. They now have a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin. Nobody else has lost anything. If they sell the Bitcoin and someone else buys it, the buyer hasn't lost anything. They had $100 worth of cash and now they have $100 worth of Bitc…

Technically there is a cost per Bitcoin from the power and other costs that occurred from mining. Some might be not fully lost (GPUs, commodity hardware) but the kWh and custom ASICs are just a sunk cost.

If Bitcoin goes to $0.01 or even $5, I bet that makes most mined Bitcoins underwater like how pennies and nickels cost more than their face value.

Post reply on HN