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

41–50 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#41

Post by acdha »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #27
stolenmerch wrote: post #14

I really don't think that Mona Lisa example is correct. Maybe I misunderstand NFTs, but wouldn't it be more like a printmaker who can make as many copies as desired, but the museum sells something like the Artist's Proof and documents the sale in an official newsletter that goes out to all members? Yes, everyone else has a print or a poster version, but only one buyer has the Artist's Proof and can prove its provenan…

NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset. They're like minting a commemorative coin celebrating the asset, and only minting a single coin. The coin does not represent ownership of the asset. It's just...a coin. A token. Supposedly, the uniqueness gives it value, but if I decide to record a single fart, that fart is unique, but the uniqueness does not inherently create value. An NFT for the M…

> An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa".

It's not even “the NFT” — anyone can create a new NFT for the same image on a different blockchain or make a 1 pixel modification and create a new NFT for something visually indistinguishable. You could imagine an art museum making something potentially harder to clone but at that point it's like a donor buying a new frame or putting a bench in front of it, and they don't have a reason to give money to the blockchain grifters when the only value comes from the reputation of a single trusted party.

> Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more.

My assumption is that most of it is simply an attempt to make cryptocurrency look valuable. Nobody has a requirement to use it so they need people to think that an NFT is an investment to get new marks buying Ethereum. Sell it to your buddy, make sure every reporter in the world hears the transaction price in hard currency values, and either write that off as marketing cost or quietly have your buddy transfer the tokens back later minus a commission.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#42

Post by serverholic »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #30
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's the recovery if your private Ethereum key gets deleted, or worse, stolen? If you're signing in via some other 3rd party, you can change your password. I'm just trying to think of how "Sign in with Ethereum" would work if you're trying to get your technophobic grandma that clicks on phishing links and responds to the County Password Inspectors [0] when they call to use it. [0] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/…

I think smart wallets will help with that. You’ll be able to create a set of recovery tokens such that you only need a subset of the tokens to recover your wallet.

For example, you can generate 7 tokens and only need 5 to reset your wallet keys. You can give 3 to your relatives, 1 in a safe-deposit box, etc.

Grandma’s kids can help her set it up.

Edit: Or, for people who really prefer centralization, you can give all 7 tokens to Bank of America. The point is you have a choice and can design the security system you want.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#43

Post by clpm4j »

Uehreka wrote: post #33
whoisjuan wrote: post #25

I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet. Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have cryp…

I said this in another comment on this post, but check out ENS. I’ve been a blockchain skeptic for a long time (and still am about art NFTs and most other things) but the idea of “SSO without a company attached” feels like something the mainstream public actually does want (think of all the negative public sentiment around big tech companies harvesting data and the grudging acceptance people have of their dependence…

I think blockchain SSO could be cool, but do you really think "the mainstream public actually does want" this? The negative public sentiment of big tech is coming from news platforms. As far as I can tell, hundreds of millions of people (e.g. the mainstream public) are using TikTok, Instagram, Snap, etc every single day. I've also never heard of any significant negativity towards Gmail for SSO (aside from my nerd engineer friends, and even among them a minority).

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#44

Post by dogma1138 »

adamrezich wrote: post #34
api wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal. I've heard this called a "pee in the pool attack." Block chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin have one intrinsic defense: they don't support very large data objects. So that makes inserting CP problematic. But someone determined enough and willing to spend…

has there been a documented case of this happening yet? one would think that there must have been, at some point, by now. but then I suppose if someone were to make a program that accesses intentionally-inserted distributed immutable data in a blockchain and reconstructs an illegal file (probably an image), then I suppose that executable or source repository itself would then be taken down by authorities and its auth…

You don’t need a program to do that, you can easily embed a BMP or an SVG without a complex executable needed to decode the image heck even for more complex file format a BASE64 decoder can do that.

Also if say CP is currently distributed through compressed archives even if they are PW protected it’s not like that 7zip then somehow becomes the illicit material. If you host the archive you are on the hook of distributing CP even if it’s encrypted…

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#45

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

Commentators on crypto will simply have to get used to this - because it isn't an argument.

> For that same reason, I think people can genuinely believe they're obsessed with web3 because of its inherent interestingness when in fact it’s because web3 has made them a lot of money very quickly.

The nature of crypto-currencies means that you are free to invest in protocols you believe will make money - either by providing value or some other less rational reason for others to purchase. It seems like bloggers writing on the subject haven't yet conceded that being confused about this fact is not an argument for or against any protocol - a healthy review will ignore the fact so sensationally stated in many writings: "people shill their investments."

Would I review a Ford Motor Vehicle by closely examining how the CEO or marketing team behave, boldly discovering they don't have an incentive to be completely honest, and then assuming they are lying? No. I would ignore all of that and evaluate the vehicle itself.

Denouncing crypto-currencies or distributed-ledger technologies has always been the cool, contrarian thing to do on HackerNews (stay poor lmao) - and there is certainly plenty to criticize which is usually missed, because blog posts like this focus on the most surface level aspects of a topic. I'm sure plenty of people really want to learn about Web3, so imagine a curious, neutral reader's disappointment when they go to learn about what many present as a technological, general protocol through the lens of what licensed NFT's the NBA is shilling.

Every valuable new movement is going to have grifters. New movements without value will have grifters. There is one good reason HackerNews doesn't have anything positive to say about crytpo, and that is that with endorsement comes advertisement and shills - I only hope this place learns to talk in generalities about technology, protocols and economics rather than only doing the opposite of what attracts grifters (which is useful).

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#46

Post by pavlov »

Uehreka wrote: post #33
whoisjuan wrote: post #25

I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet. Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have cryp…

I said this in another comment on this post, but check out ENS. I’ve been a blockchain skeptic for a long time (and still am about art NFTs and most other things) but the idea of “SSO without a company attached” feels like something the mainstream public actually does want (think of all the negative public sentiment around big tech companies harvesting data and the grudging acceptance people have of their dependence…

The mainstream public doesn't want their identity attached to a private key that they can lose.

And if you're letting someone else store the key, then it's just another form of "Login with X".

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#47

Post by bsid »

Uehreka wrote: post #33
whoisjuan wrote: post #25

I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet. Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have cryp…

I said this in another comment on this post, but check out ENS. I’ve been a blockchain skeptic for a long time (and still am about art NFTs and most other things) but the idea of “SSO without a company attached” feels like something the mainstream public actually does want (think of all the negative public sentiment around big tech companies harvesting data and the grudging acceptance people have of their dependence…

$150+ to own one for a year?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#48

Post by TigeriusKirk »

knownjorbist wrote: post #38
api wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO this could be the "killer app" and is something I might actually use if it got sufficient traction and support. OpenID gives a few organizations like Google, Okta, and Microsoft "root on the entire world." It terrifies me.

A key "ah-ha" moment for me was realizing that your wallet is your login on every dApp that's ever existed or ever will exist. It's pseudonymous and developers sort of get various things for free out of it as a result(payments, authorization, authentication)

There's also the potentially interesting idea of wallet-as-resume. IE allowing different types of access depending on what sorts of things you've done with your wallet in the past. Certainly not for all applications, but a certain level of implied competency might be appropriate in some cases.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#49

Post by rglover »

TrackerFF wrote: post #8

RE: Censorship You often see advocates of decentralization hail networks for being pro-immutability, battling censorship. How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around? I'm talking about things like CP, terrorist media, fake news, scams/frauds, and what not.

> How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around?

That is censorship. The correct answer is you don't. When you obscure evil, it propagates. When you shine a light on it, it disinfects. Awareness of the thing leads to discernment of the thing. Unless you think people are default evil, bad ideas will stay bad ideas without an intermediary forcing their will upon them.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#50

Post by gfodor »

whoisjuan wrote: post #25

I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet. Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have cryp…

Even if nothing else pops out, it’s a huge error to point to illegal activity as some kind of bad, irrelevant use case. That smuggles in an assumption that lawbreakers are universally evil. There have been plenty of periods in history where those enforcing the law in a given country were the oppressors, and the resistant lawbreakers the innocent. It’s worth considering what the value proposition of crypto looks like if you were to find yourself living under an illegitimate authority. It may be marginal if the authority can stop it, but the more illegal activity we see in crypto the stronger the belief we should hold that it will be hard to suppress.
Post reply on HN