Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

311–320 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#311

The legitimacy of a worldwide database can be solved if the UN decides to run a MySQL instance, creates APIs for transactions between individuals, and agrees on a worldwide legal framework for transactions. In the eyes of many this would look more legitimate than the "network of terrorists and CP". I don't think that argument is enough

There's already a worldwide API for transactions between individuals. It's called SWIFT.

It's not global though, countries like Iran have had banks disconnected, and subject to various political interests.

Re: Why Web3?

#312
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With web3, there is no deplatforming, no moderation, no accountability. There is no responsibility. That’s what they really want. They want a system that, in their minds, won’t be subject to regulation or social pressure. They are still mad that Reddit blocked certain groups. That parler got banned from public clouds. Those are the things that made them “wake up” to the need for web3. Deleting data and social account…

> With web3, there is no deplatforming, no moderation, no accountability A collection of NFTs got deplatformed, moderated, and even accepted accountability yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29714296

That is what the reality will be.

But the image that is being communicated is Web3 is decentralised and impervious to the kinds of moderation we have today.

Re: Why Web3?

#313
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an easy counter to "I see no practical application for decentralization," which is to provide an example of that application. I'm not convinced that Bitcoin or currencies are a practical application that results in net gain (economic or otherwise) to humanity. The internet was obvious from day 1, even if the actual end applications ended up quite a bit different. > how can you not see the utility in an open f…

The gate keepers are preventing me from building the kind of apps I want. Just the other day people here reminisced about the days when Twitter used to have an open API and how bad it is that they shut it down. I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down.

This isn't what users want in general, and you don't need crypto to get it. What you're asking for exists with things like mastodon. No one advocating how/why they think crypto will succeed when things like mastodon failed. Hell, RSS failed. The average user wants easy to use, easy to connect, free, and fast services. Crypto fails at all of these.

Re: Why Web3?

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a worldwide API for transactions between individuals. It's called SWIFT.

It's not global though, countries like Iran have had banks disconnected, and subject to various political interests.

That's fair, but that seems like more of a feature than a bug. Why have a system we can't control if there's already one we can use for our interests?

Re: Why Web3?

#315
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference between a fungible token and a non-fungible token is its fungibility: everything else is the same. The stated use case for both is "I want to know for certain who owns something". A chain of digital signatures fails to satisfy that need. Please stop being so assertive about something you clearly don't know anything about: there are tons of useful complaints about how people are using NFTs, but thi…

A semantic distinction without an actual difference. At the end of the day all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", if you trust the public key of X a signed text file stating "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" gives you identical guarantees to a blockchain NFT stating the same thing. Nothing stops author X from minting a blockchain NFT that states "author X gives ownership of Y to Z" and also…

> all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z",

Incorrect. As @saurik says, but I'll just restate: an NFT also tells you the ordering of all such statements within one context (a single blockchain). So you can know whether this was the first such transfer by this owner or a subsequent one. This is the entire purpose of distributed databases, including blockchains.

Re: Why Web3?

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFT would contain "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key. When you decide to sell someone the NFT you append "$new_owner_public_key owns $k as of $date" to the NFT and sign it with your private key: this establishes a secure and verifiable chain of ownership.

You can send two of those assignment signatures to two different parties simultaneously. Is there a way in your system to avoid the double send?

You just invent a thing called notaries. You'll have to go back in time to do it since they already exist but that's besides the point. Anyways, a notary puts their reputation/legal liability on the line and counter signs your transaction. Since they've been granted license by a real legal entity with guns and jails they commit to verifying a transaction occurred at X time.

Monies for the transaction can be put into escrow with a third party (you'll need to go back in time to invent that too). When the notary notifies the escrow holder of the signatures they can release the monies.

When you have a legal system to enforce contracts and people put their own money or legal liability on the line two parties don't need to trust one another to conduct transactions. People buy expensive shit all the time. They don't need to trust each other with the money or valuables because they involve third parties that proffer up (staking if you will) liability to let the two parties conduct transactions.

The blockchain model replaces the staked liability with "expensive" proof of whatever. The only problem is monied entities can these proof systems. They can afford to run a majority of miners, stake the most (or spam stake offerings), or whatever otherwise supposedly expensive resource. They're only expensive resources if you naively assume all mining will be done by randos in their bedrooms.

Blockchains are just a way to do something almost no one needs in a slow expensive way.

Re: Why Web3?

#317
post #148
post #127

This argument is simple, but forgets that the Internet has essentially had permission-less databases before, notably in IRC, XMPP, and email. Anyone can run an IRC or XMPP node, anyone can run email. The protocols are open and free (as in money) to use. But time and again the masses of Internet users choose centralized alternatives. It's interesting to see this already playing out in the Web 3 space. Users concentrat…

I think the argument made implicitly is that with web3 you could actually monetize your contribution. If you run an IRC server you (usually) only have cost. One part of web3 is tokens so you can actually earn some fake money by running an IRC server. I think if you look at the economics of that though I don't think it will turn out in your favor. You are either making 10ct a month from it or you'll have to heavily in…

Also Web3 is inherently centred around usage models. One token for each comment or channel.

But a lot of people hate that model and much prefer the "all you can eat" monthly subcription approach.

Re: Why Web3?

#318

This article is filled with absolutely 0 reasons why Web 3.0 should be taken seriously. All it says is: Web 3.0 matters because I say so. And we will prove it, Yes.. and?

It really sounds like the big data, machine learning, AI and enterprise blockchain craze from 5 years ago. Where those things were used for the most stupid things just so the marketing department could put it on a powerpoint slide.

Re: Why Web3?

#319
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gate keepers are preventing me from building the kind of apps I want. Just the other day people here reminisced about the days when Twitter used to have an open API and how bad it is that they shut it down. I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down.

> I want to build apps without having to worry about ever being restricted, limited or shut down. So. Where's blockchain-powered Twitters and Facebooks then? For all the talk about gatekeeping and decentralization no actual apps appeared that would in any way support your words.

There's Bitclout (Re-branded to "DeSo"/diamondapp.com) but it suffers from the same blocksize debate as anybody. No way to stay sync'd if it actually became popular, which it didn't because every new user had to learn how tell real accounts from fake lookalikes.

Re: Why Web3?

#320
Web 3.0 is either snakeoil, or a ponzi scheme. Or both.

We'll all know soon enough. After all, it's not like any actual engineers are going to have a say in this: just the donors and their retainers.

Post reply on HN