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

Web3 is centralized and inefficient

neelc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 769 posts

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#311

Post by happymellon »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #284
dmitriid wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's interesting because I can hoard tickets and resell at profit". Why is that interesting, exactly? Edit All that is marked as "interesting" in crypto is inevitably "how can I profit/get rich quick off something".

In a proper market, it is impossible to resell because the sales price is the production price. So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match. At which point there is no point in being a scalper anymore. Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed.

> Scalping is only an issue if the sales price of products is artificially depressed.

No offense, but you do not understand art.

Yes, there are a lot of bands that could sell higher priced tickets but don't because they want to be accessable to everyone, not just people with money to burn.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#312

Post by mellavora »

JesseAldridge wrote: post #245
rablackburn wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the book has a legal authority backing it up saying that its entries are property rights to the listed address. Buying an NFT just to have an NFT is like paying for an entry in a book with no further meaning. You just get to say that’s your entry. Oh and the entry is an http url, so there’s a good chance it’ll 404 eventually (if you even get a status code back)

And where does legal authority come from? Social consensus - it's the same thing. The legal edifice maintaining property rights also requires maintenance.

> The legal edifice maintaining property rights also requires maintenance.

Hey, just want to point something out here. The quoted sentence is really important. Civil society doesn't just happen, we all (or at least most of us) have a vested interest in maintaining the legal edifice.

So tomorrow, be nice to someone in traffic. And show good grace and community when faced with one of the social frictions (like waiting in line).

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#313

Post by mellavora »

oblio wrote: post #236
threatripper wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally owning a house is literally just having your name and the address of your house in a book. EDIT: The actual power does not reside in the book. It resides in the mindshare this specific book has. Anyone can put anything in a book but only some people control the book that people pay attention to. Similar it is with fiat, cryptos and nfts. The power is not in the technology itself but in the mindshare they occu…

I physically live in that house and nobody can trivially and completely legally take it down for good.

squatters.

eminent domain.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#314

Post by dfabulich »

meribold wrote: post #301
mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to something I created for $x and then you give me $x and we both sign the piece of paper. A court would consider that piece of paper valid which makes the contract real. Replace the piece of paper with a text file with cryptographic signatures and a court may consider that valid as well. Isn't an NFT basically such a text file embedded into a decent…

Absolutely not. We can't have NFT land deeds (for example) because the legal system has the power to takeover your land (e.g. if you fail to pay taxes), but the legal system doesn't have the capacity to force you to transfer your NFT, especially if you delete your private key, in which case nobody can ever transfer it again.

If the legal system says you don't own the land, but the NFT says you do, the legal system wins.

The NFT appears useful only when it happens to do exactly what the legal system would already do, and is useless when it disagrees with the legal system. As a result, minting and transferring was a giant waste of electricity; you should have just registered your deed at the county recorder's office, the old fashioned way.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#315

Post by dalbasal »

melomal wrote: post #299
ahtihn wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the incentive for the ticket seller to enable that?

Royalties. The ticket seller can set that and every time the ticket is resold, they will get % of that sale. For an artist that would mean they can sell a ticket with % royalty set and then profit from future sales on an ongoing basis.

So... A method for scalping scalpers?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#316

Post by chii »

unmole wrote: post #280
vmception wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A digital picture frame is a physical device that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing them, you purchased the device though. A digital digital picture frame is a set of classes that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing the image, you purchased the set of classes, typically following one of the NFT standard…

But an NFT doesn't let me look at a picture. It doesn't have a display for one. The whole point of a digital picture frame is that it has a display. Is a browser a digital digital picture frame? I have as much need for a specialised digital digital picture frame as I have for a digital paperweight.

The frame isn't _for_ you, it's for everybody else, and that frame shows (with proof) that _you_ own the picture.

That's why the mona lisa framed in the museum is worth more than a replica picture. It's not even the frame, it's the fact that there's a public broadcast of a form of ownership.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#317

Post by tluyben2 »

meribold wrote: post #301
mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to something I created for $x and then you give me $x and we both sign the piece of paper. A court would consider that piece of paper valid which makes the contract real. Replace the piece of paper with a text file with cryptographic signatures and a court may consider that valid as well. Isn't an NFT basically such a text file embedded into a decent…

But that is all solved with signing and verifying in cryptography. Why does it need to be on the blockchain? I think you are asking the same thing somewhat. In many countries (at least in the EU) the gov now has mobile apps (and horrible desktop versions but the idea is the same) which generates a key pair on your device, sends the public key to the gov where it is connected to your tax number and that is it. This involved a bunch of security steps like your bank. Works very well but unfortunately it is not useable yet by any company; once it is, signing by pen is in the past. It is efficient and blockchain is not needed. But I guess the blockchain fans will argue that if your gov suddenly turns Russia, this centralised version is now not trusted anymore. And they would be right, but like you say; neither are the courts so it falls apart anyway? What’s the solution that is solved by the chain?

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#318

Post by phreezie »

meribold wrote: post #301
mmaunder wrote: post #188

I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I could write on a piece of paper that I grant you exclusive rights to something I created for $x and then you give me $x and we both sign the piece of paper. A court would consider that piece of paper valid which makes the contract real. Replace the piece of paper with a text file with cryptographic signatures and a court may consider that valid as well. Isn't an NFT basically such a text file embedded into a decent…

It's not the signing that OP criticizes. It's that the "something" is defined by an URL whose destination can change, and otherwise none of the "something"'s content (like, for example a hash) is in the contract.

I doubt a court would consider such a vague definition of content as "real".

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#319

Post by jeroenhd »

shafyy wrote: post #261
jeroenhd wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some use cases for blockhains, namely cryptocurrencies and their unregulated nature. There have been plenty of times that I didn't want to hand over my name and address for an online purchase, but the traditional payment systems aren't set up for privacy. Payment providers also discriminate against certain aspects of society, such as sex work. The fees an adult content provider needs to pay are astronomical…

> Payment providers also discriminate against certain aspects of society, such as sex work. The fees an adult content provider needs to pay are astronomical if they can even get a contract with any payment provider at all. Furthermore, the USA has a severe problem that stems from companies like Equifax deciding what you can and cannot afford with no way to protest their decisions. This is not a technology problem, th…

It's hardly a legal problem, there are plenty of countries and US states where many kinds of sex work are perfectly legal, and having your life ruled by credit agencies is far from universal.

I understand that with decent regulation illegal goods can't just fly under the radar anymore, I'm just saying that in the current ecosystem there is a use case for this fake money where real money simply cannot be exchanged reliably. In an ideal world we wouldn't need fake underground value transfers but the world is far from ideal.

Re: Web3 is centralized and inefficient

#320

Post by OtomotO »

boomlinde wrote: post #262
divs1210 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not why making an NFT out of the ticket is interesting. It's interesting because I can, for example, resell my Woodstock ticket on an open market.

So ticket scalping. This was never desirable to anyone except the reseller in the first place. Concert goers hate scalpers, arrangers hate scalpers and the reseller adds no value to their service. I don't see how it's the least bit interesting.

It's interesting because it could be _my_ profit!

Nevermind the society or the environment. If money can be made, money shall be made, no matter how shady a business /s

Post reply on HN