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

351–360 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#351

Post by somebodythere »

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?

1. A lot more people are using Sign In With Ethereum than other kinds of signature-based auth to log into websites. The UX, while not perfect, is a lot more figured out.

2. SIWE lets the user share a cryptographically verified shared state of the user. For example, digital asset collections, reputation in a group etc.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#352

Post by cyounkins »

almostkorean wrote: post #245
zepto wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just using a bad bank. The bank I use lets you initiate a wire via their iPhone app, and then they simply call to confirm security details etc. Far easier and safer than anything crypto has to offer. Not to mention that it’s a complete fantasy to expect all but the tiniest number of sellers to accept crypto today , so the comparison is between something that exists today and works very well, and something tha…

The bank I use is PNC, looks like it is currently the 7th largest bank in the US. To be fair, in the past month they opened a new branch which is a 10 minute drive, so that makes the first part a lot better. I am also lucky enough to live in a fairly high population area. After seeing the other comments I guess this wire transfer issue is specific to the US. I agree that a tiny number of sellers would accept crypto p…

I left PNC when they started charging me $3 per check image viewed online through their web interface. I didn't believe it until the charges actually accumulated.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#353

Post by lmm »

maccolgan wrote: post #306
nkuttler wrote: post #285

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?

Sure, or if you're willing to trust an electronic database you can put it in an electronic database. How do you think wholesalers buy and sell wine at the moment?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#354

Post by Kinrany »

twic wrote: post #133
almostkorean wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not OP but I had to wire money earlier this year when I bought a house. To accomplish this, I had to drive to my nearest bank branch (1 hour drive), talk to a bank teller for 15 minutes while she filled out forms and printed out papers I had to sign, and then they told me the wire would probably arrive in time for the house signing (3 hours later). This was to send ~$15k. Compare this to sending USDC on [smart co…

People are probably tired of hearing this, but this is not a problem with wiring, it's a problem with US banks. When i bought my home in the UK six years ago, i phoned my bank, told them how much i wanted to send and to who, and they did it, with the money arriving straight away. If the amount had been less than 20k, i could have done it online rather than over the phone; the back-end payment machinery is the same, b…

This sounds worse than using a website: incredibly easy to steal money from the bank by faking voice and phone number.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#355

Post by AnthonyMouse »

boc wrote: post #348
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And you've set me up perfectly for the real point: stocks generate dividends. Dividends mean that the "rocks" you hold spit out a few pennies magically every so often. While fewer stocks today pay a dividend, many still do. For holding bonds you get the coupon payment, which again is like your rocks spitting out pennies every so often. In the real world, companies and governments are paying you to hold their rocks. T…

But dividends are zero-sum. The shareholder gets the money, the corporate entity loses it. The value created is the value created by the company's business operations, which is independent of whether any of the profits are ever distributed as dividends.

By analogy, it would be the value of the currency as a currency, i.e. to facilitate productive financial transactions that would not otherwise occur. The reason non-speculators would ultimately want to have any.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#356

Post by lmm »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #298

Cryptos and Web3 are currently there where Web 1.0 was in the nineties. It was silly to order Pizza over the Internet like it was laughable listening to a baseball radio transmission over the internet instead using a … radio. LOL 20 years later everybody‘s ordering food over the internet while watching Netflix.

And yet it's had what, 10 years, and it's still all dumb or criminal or both. I've always said the better nineties analogy is to all the Second Life islands being sold for millions of dollars or whatever. Eventually the hype died down and it became irrelevant even though it never went away as such.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#357

Post by nathias »

Instead of reading all this garbage about why not to learn web3, just use this time and try to implement a smartcontract, so you at least know what's going on.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#358

Post by meheleventyone »

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…

I think Animats is calling it zero sum because the value of Bitcoin is essentially based on speculation rather than use so relies on new entrants to prop it up and the coins are generated within the system. Basically new coins do not represent new dollars coming in and generating new coins all the time is inherently deflationary. So not only do you need demand to outstrip supply to keep the value going up you also need new dollar entrants if you ever want to cash out.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#359

Post by shiohime »

hanniabu wrote: post #323
_gf4m wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETH's current scalability problems are beyond terrible, but there are alternatives. You can use chains like Polygon or Avalanche that are EVM, so you get all of the capabilities of Ethereum, but without insane gas fees. There are non-EVM solutions as well like Solana, which has substantially higher throughput while transactions cost a fraction of a cent. Try out other chains than ETH before ruling out web3 imo. There…

> ETH's current scalability problems are beyond terrible, but there are alternatives The only alternative is ethereum L2s. Avalanche, solana, etc are centralized VC chains that do not have the foundation needed to be the infrastructure of tomorrow.

I keep hearing this argument but I really don't buy it, sorry. I think that over time these other chains are also going to naturally decentralize, at least in the case of Solana the primary barrier of entry is hardware. I think that actually having a product that works today is more important than a platform that hasn't been scalable since inception. Maybe ETH 2.0 will release sometime and all the ongoing scalability efforts actually do work, but until then I think it's absurd to write off other chains that are vastly outperforming it.

Edit - It's really, really easy to see that a transaction on Ethereum is not even remotely worth the gas it charges today. I remember hearing ETH people trashing BTC transaction prices in 2017, but yeah I'm sorry, this is so beyond absurd I cannot support or recommend anyone use ETH as a layer 1 until it is actually a scalable chain. Not in theory, but actually works. Wasn't sharding and layering discussed in 2017? How much longer until it's actually usable? Gas price for minting a JPG the other day for me would have been $300. This isn't worth it in any world unless you are sitting on a fat stack of ETH you bought under $200. But then you should just sell it instead of actually using it. Don't you see the problem? Why do you think there's so many articles talking about how terrible Web3 is? It couldn't possibly be that people's first impression of the tech is on a financially impractical chain.

I like working in Solidity and think the EVM is great, and there's a lot of cool projects in the Ethereum ecosystem. But ETH is an unusable L1 for the vast majority of people until they solve scalability. No amount of decentralization dreams are worth it. Hell, you could even just use Ethereum classic if you wanted. It does everything ETH does because it's just ETH except they didn't have a centralized Ethereum foundation mutate the chain history because someone stole a bunch of money from them and only costs like $50 the last time I checked. If you care so much about decentralization shouldn't you like the chain that didn't have it's history changed by a centralized organization?

If you really want the most decentralized network possible, Bitcoin is it. I haven't looked into the taproot update too much yet, but maybe it'll be actually supported before ETH scales at this rate.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#360

Post by AnthonyMouse »

meheleventyone wrote: post #358
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #312

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…

I think Animats is calling it zero sum because the value of Bitcoin is essentially based on speculation rather than use so relies on new entrants to prop it up and the coins are generated within the system. Basically new coins do not represent new dollars coming in and generating new coins all the time is inherently deflationary. So not only do you need demand to outstrip supply to keep the value going up you also ne…

> I think Animats is calling it zero sum because the value of Bitcoin is essentially based on speculation rather than use so relies on new entrants to prop it up and the coins are generated within the system.

This really depends on what you think is going to happen going forward. Surely the current value is propped up by speculation, but are the speculators right? Is future-Bitcoin going to be very useful and thus valuable for something, so that the speculators will eventually have someone to sell their Bitcoins to other than just more speculators?

It's not impossible for that to happen just because it hasn't already happened. It's also not impossible that it doesn't, in which case the speculators themselves will be the ones left holding the bag. But that's how it goes, isn't it? High reward, high risk.

Post reply on HN