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

Why Web3?

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#351

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

root_axis wrote: post #241
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem. I think that is the "minting" problem. An artist simply signing stuff does not even prove that a physical object corresponding to the token exists. I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you…

> I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government). A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain.

"A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain."

Only because the government keeps track of who owns what in a centralized database. Typically they also ask for pretty high transferal fees.

Re: Why Web3?

#352

Post by tshaddox »

root_axis wrote: post #225
codesternews wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some project. NFT Replicas - https://nftreplicas.net/ Nothing is stopping any one to mint another NFT with same content.

Indeed, but NFT enthusiasts would say that the replicas are not valid because they were not originally minted by the trusted author, of course, nothing is stopping the author from minting multiple NFTs of the same content so the point is moot.

Why would you want the minter to be prevented from minting multiple NFRs of the same content? The content is totally moot! It’s the ownership of the scarce token which the author claims uniquely represents the content that people are valuing. Obviously if the author is minting multiple tokens and claiming they all uniquely represent the same piece of content, most likely no one is going to value those tokens much. None of this strikes me as odd or troublesome. It’s how all collectibles have worked long before NFTs.

Re: Why Web3?

#353

Post by shazzdeeds »

threeseed wrote: post #302
Lordarminius wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to hate on crypto, that's your prerogative but stop using the old, tired, false argument about money laundering. It is easier to launder money through the legacy financial system than through cryptocurrency. In fact, financial institutions and businesses do it all the time.

> It is easier to launder money through the legacy financial system than through cryptocurrency I work for a bank and this is a flat out lie. We have a significant number of controls (regulated by government agencies) for managing money laundering risk. We try to identify source/destinations who hide behind shell companies through beneficial ownership methods. We enforce domestic and international sanctions. We ident…

And yet the vast majority of money laundering still happens through traditional banking channels. If crypto was such a panacea for laundering all the traffic would have switched over by now.

Re: Why Web3?

#354

Post by tshaddox »

root_axis wrote: post #212
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at least you can check the blockchain for all the content the author has created.

The author could use a unique private key for each blockchain NFT if they wanted to avoid that.

Huh? If you can’t verify that the public key is the author’s then you wouldn’t consider the message to be signed by the author.

Re: Why Web3?

#355

Post by Zaskoda »

corobo wrote: post #289
Zaskoda wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, pay with money. End of story. Expecting services for free got is into this horrible advertising model that turned us into the product rather than customers. There are people promoting gasless, free to use chains. That model is flawed. Financial incentives is what finally made decentralized networks a real thing. For a good explanation as to where we're going with this, read "Who Owns The Future."

Excluding people without money sounds like the opposite direction the internet should be headed :(

You're forgetting about the part where the same system can provide those people with an income. Excluding people from the global financial system, imo, is the opposite of where we should be headed. The notion of paying people for their contribution to the network, no matter how small, is discussed in "Who Owns The Future"

Re: Why Web3?

#356

Post by cam0 »

unicornmama wrote: post #202
ThomPete wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crypto community does what every startup should do. They find the customers before they start building i.e. they build community first and in effect build products. To say that things aren't being build in the crypto community is simply flat out false. It's one of the fastest developing industries and more and more talent are leaving their previous jobs or industries.

Talent is pouring in because free money is gushing out from the mother of all bubbles. Enjoy it while it lasts.

A lot of VC firms just raised huge funds that likely have a ~10yr lifespan, and they're going to need to invest that money, so I think this whole web3 thing could actually last a long time. Retail traders buying fractions of a single bitcoin and all the memecoins will likely get squashed though.

Re: Why Web3?

#357

Post by johnnyApplePRNG »

root_axis wrote: post #68

I'm not convinced. People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain. DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2"…

>every DeFi scheme is a money loser relative to just buying eth and waiting for a pump

Maybe, until ETH never pumps again.

Eventually the blue chip cryptocurrencies will find their fair price, and price swings of 10-20% in a single day will be a thing of the past.

DeFi DAOs like Curve Finance [0] (currently leading the DeFi pack in terms of Total Value Locked [1]) will generate income for whoever holds a CRV token... so long as the crypto trading markets exist.

Curve actually provides a service. They pool liquidity to enable larger trades with less slippage, and as such they're extremely popular.

The gas fees are not an issue either, as Curve works across 7 different layer 1 blockchains at the moment and I am sure that is bound to increase in the future.

[0] https://curve.fi/

[1] https://defillama.com/

Re: Why Web3?

#358

Post by Zaskoda »

malermeister wrote: post #306
Zaskoda wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, pay with money. End of story. Expecting services for free got is into this horrible advertising model that turned us into the product rather than customers. There are people promoting gasless, free to use chains. That model is flawed. Financial incentives is what finally made decentralized networks a real thing. For a good explanation as to where we're going with this, read "Who Owns The Future."

It sounds to me like what you are suggesting would be taking the awful inequality we're already suffering and would transpose it to the web. Why would we want that?

You can't provide services for free without exploiting people. I recommend reading "Who Owns The Future" for a for discussion on inclusion.

Re: Why Web3?

#359

Post by tshaddox »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #98
doomrobo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public.…

Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digita…

What prevents a musical artist from publishing a bunch of unoriginal filler after having a major hit? Is this really a serious threat to the concept of publishing music?

Re: Why Web3?

#360

Post by jrsj »

inopinatus wrote: post #277
jrsj wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing more annoying than libertarian crypto bros is progressives who don’t like crypto because people have made money off it or they see it as inherently right wing technology (the Soviet Union said that about computers originally, you can see how that worked out for them)

Maybe so, but they’re not in this thread. Criticising the whole shebang as a bunch of charletans pitching snake oil to the gullible isn’t “progressive”, it’s common sense.

Everyone loves to say their politics are just common sense but characterizing all of crypto as “rich libertarians who see crypto as a way to protect their assets from the government” is an inherently political narrative and it simply isn’t true.

There’s also a big difference between valuable emerging technologies that have a lot of speculative investments & charlatans selling snake oil vs “the whole shebang”.

Post reply on HN