Live data from Hacker News

Web3? I have my DAOts

networked.substack.com

331–340 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#331
post #287
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope Facebook does not guzzle same amount of energy as Bitcoin. We don't need another nation level energy guzzler for a spy/disinformation network.

An article from a bit ago to put approximate scale of the services - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/20... > Climate researchers say two Google searches emit 7g of CO2 – the same as boiling an electric kettle. > ... > If Wissner-Gross is correct then 3,500 tonnes of CO2 (500m x 0.000007 tonnes) are emitted every day through all of us performing Google searches. Or put another way, 1.28m tonn…

While I am sympathetic with your argument, don’t forget you’re just comparing energy consumptions.

We don’t know much about how its energy is being created. If 90% of Bitcoin’s energy use would be from renewables its CO2 footprint wouldn’t be 45x as large as that of Google.

There was a study a couple of years ago suggesting Bitcoin’s global footprint is comparable to that of a medium sized city. But its assumptions are probably outdated.

Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#332
post #263
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding was that wires were quite difficult to reverse, and it's ACH transfers that can be reversed. Regardless, the reversibility aspect has both positives and negatives. It does allow you to reverse transactions, but with the added complexity of the transaction not really settling until after that reversibility period passes. If I receive a crypto transfer (ex: a stablecoin), I can know that the money is a…

The risk of the money being fraudulently taken back is close to zero. If you are worrying about that happening, then you are either a fraudster yourself, or just being paranoid. There is no major benefit to not having this. On the other hand, if a crypto transaction has any errors, the money is instantly lost forever, and nobody can help you. There is no upside to that at all.

I have been the victim of chargeback fraud and major banking errors that resulted in major losses that took months to recover.

Irreversibly transferring funds and having complete ownership of them once they are in your possession is a huge feature.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Recently purchased a home with a loan from aave polygon and it was pretty painless.

Is there any credit impact or such from paying with a loan?

Nope, it uses my crypto as collateral and operates outside the credit system.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you rely on a trusted entity (winery) you don't need a blockchain to do anything you just described.

How are you going to transfer the right to have a wine bottle? By continuously signing legal documents?

Yes, this is probably what you'd do in this hypothetical case, and it's hardly unheard of for contracts to be written up with transferability clauses. Given that we exist in a world where digital signatures also exist, it's unlikely to be particularly onerous.

("Continuously" is probably not the right word, unless you are envisioning the rather unlikely case of this transfer happening on an annual basis!)

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#336
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…

It's still zero-sum - I'll illustrate with an example:

Imagine you and your friends collect and trade rocks you find on the beach. The more rocks you pick up and put in your personal baskets, the scarcer they become (just like mining bitcoins), so the work of finding more rocks becomes harder. This makes all the rocks you've already found "worth" more. Let's say for this thought experiment that there are 1000 rocks on this beach total.

The value of the rocks is only realized when someone decides they want to pay you dollars for your rocks in your pile instead of going out to pick up rocks themselves. This transaction (say $1 per rock for 100 rocks) now suddenly makes everyone's pile of rocks valuable, because there's someone out there who was willing to pay $1 per rock. If the next person pays $2 per rock for 100 rocks, then everyone's rock piles double in value. This means that the "market cap" for rocks on your beach is $2000 ($2 x 1000 rocks), but that doesn't mean that there is suddenly $2000 of USD in you and your friends' pockets. There's only the $300 that the two buyers paid into the system, but it wasn't generated by collecting rocks.

Let's say that the last 100 rocks are super hard to find - they might be buried deep in the beach and not worth digging with your hands. After a few hours the supply of rocks has essentially capped. The only way to get more rocks for yourself is to trade dollars for rocks. You open your wallet and buy 100 rocks from your friend for $500 dollars.

Now everyone knows that 1 rock = $5. Market cap = $5000.

Someone else wants to buy but it's hard to get anyone to sell. They spend $100 to buy just 10 rocks. Now 1 rock = $10, Market cap = $10,000.

Now that each rock is worth $10, people get shovels and try to find more rocks buried. Finally they've all been found. Let's say that 100 people total are now holding at least 1 rock.

Let's freeze it here and look at who has won and who has lost. Assume that finding the rocks didn't cost anything. From the perspective of everyone who simply picked up rocks, they hold rocks worth $10 each, but haven't paid anything to acquire them. Great right? Well not necessarily - nobody actually paid them anything yet, so they have realized exactly $0 in gains.

Let's look at the four transactions that occurred which gave the rocks value. The first saw $100 go from person A to person B, for a net of $0. The second saw $200 from one person to another, for a net of $0. Third, etc - fourth and final, also net of $0.

Within this example, trading dollars for rocks is clearly a zero-sum game. The only reason that crypto "looks" different is that it's a much larger beach with millions of rocks and millions of people trying to trade them and pick them up. But it's the same thing.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#337
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would any of this need cryto? If you trust the winery to hold the wine you could trust them to rule the exchange. Each bottle could still have a token. Values could still rise and fall. All stored on a central exchange. These tokens issued by a trusted entity could perform the same function and can be cashed out. The key feature of cryto is around connecting trustless entities. Once you centralize on a physical p…

> Why would any of this need cryto? If you trust the winery to hold the wine you could trust them to rule the exchange. That’s a little like saying “why would the winery need Apple to make computers for them, the winery could just develop their own computer hardware and software.” It doesn’t make sense for most wineries to develop its own online exchange system, and the fact that it’s technically possible for a winer…

The point is that there are multitudes of other technological solutions readily available which solve the stated problem far more simply then a blockchain.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the opposite thing happens in the stock market. The shareholders vote on the board of directors and the board of directors pay the CEO mostly based on the stock price going up. One way they do that is buying back shares. Another way is buy making money via positive cashflow and giving dividends to the share holders. Bitcoin has negative cashflow, the only way it goes up is by more people putting money into i…

Picasso paintings have possible positive cash flows via tax loopholes. So they don’t call it a Ponzi scheme because they do call it (legal) tax evasion. For example: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-do-rich-buy-art-divyanshu...

Tax evasion and avoidance are two different things.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would any of this need cryto? If you trust the winery to hold the wine you could trust them to rule the exchange. That’s a little like saying “why would the winery need Apple to make computers for them, the winery could just develop their own computer hardware and software.” It doesn’t make sense for most wineries to develop its own online exchange system, and the fact that it’s technically possible for a winer…

The point is that there are multitudes of other technological solutions readily available which solve the stated problem far more simply then a blockchain.

Of course there are alternatives, and some alternatives may be better or worse depending on the features and qualities you desire. Again, there’s nothing unique about blockchains here. You could say the same thing about any random pick out of the top 50 CSS frameworks.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#340
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's still zero-sum - I'll illustrate with an example: Imagine you and your friends collect and trade rocks you find on the beach. The more rocks you pick up and put in your personal baskets, the scarcer they become (just like mining bitcoins), so the work of finding more rocks becomes harder. This makes all the rocks you've already found "worth" more. Let's say for this thought experiment that there are 1000 rocks o…

> Well not necessarily - nobody actually paid them anything yet, so they have realized exactly $0 in gains.

Except that they still have a rock that the market currently values at $10. The value of that clearly isn't zero, because it's $10.

The argument that not everybody could sell their rocks all at once and still get the same price is only relevant if that's what happens. It's like saying your shares in an S&P 500 index aren't worth the market price because of what would happen if everyone sold at once.

Post reply on HN