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

Web3 is expensive P2P

netfuture.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#41

Post by somezero »

littlestymaar wrote: post #33
somezero wrote: post #8

Sure! It’s P2P, but doesn’t need centralized certificate authorities (= Has some Sybil resistance)

> doesn’t need centralized certificate authorities (= Has some Sybil resistance) What link do you make between Sybil attacks and centralized authorities? And btw the only decentralized sybil resistance component to blockchain things was proof of work, which is being deprecated by most people who believe Web3 is a thing (which afaik Bitcoiners don't).

The only way to provably prevent Sybil attacks are CAs (https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/sybil.pdf) This is why almost all P2P and DHT papers assumed existence of a CA in their system model eg. Castro’s secure routing etc.

P.S. PoS protocols are also Sybil resistance mechanisms. Look into Tendermint and compare it with, say, PBFT.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#42

Post by douglaswlance »

The internet didn't replace centralized services. It was a new platform that extended the capabilities.

Web3 is the same thing. It offers new platforms for extending capabilities using blockchain tech.

The platform is decentralized. Centralized services are built using the platform. Services themselves do not need to decentralized. But they can benefit from it.

You can also build decentralized services. In some sense, decentralized services become the platform.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#43

Post by cnity »

andsoitis wrote: post #3

> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…

It is my (largely uninformed) opinion that the greatest barrier to an open web is the difficulty in securing a static address for a device that remains consistent regardless of the currently connected gateway address. So much of what third party web services actually do is simply offering a static address for routing traffic.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#44

Post by can16358p »

Ironically I can't access the site, that probably defends against web3 (checking out the title and the comments), which is on a centralized web host, is probably hugged to death because of HN exposure and I can't access it.

I can't stop thinking how things could be different if we embraced web3 and used a decentralized storage/hosting that incentivizes sharing by some form of token, solving the scaling problem while also awarding the content creators/hosters.

I know this is not the only solution, but given the particular context, I can't stop thinking this.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#45

Post by mdale »

andsoitis wrote: post #3

> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…

It depends what decentralization layer your talking about. Technically all these centralized / proprietary channels rose from the underlining net neutral decentralized Web.

I think higher layer "decentralized" protocols may allow a lot of people / organizations to compete but a similar winner takes all network effect will likely take hold relative to the fundamentals of network centric bell curve.

The marginally better content / service wins out exponentially as it gains value as more people in the network consume or interact with it. It's why small percent of YouTubers, twitch streamers and blogger, app store apps take home hugely disperportional percent of revenue on these services. The same would be true for "decentralized" platforms. Maybe more so as there would be no organization to build, invest and support the farm league.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#46

Post by zmgsabst »

bpeebles wrote: post #32
web4 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

web3 is not "pay for every click." value prop is disintermediation and decentralization. like purchasing a game asset, and not having it tied only to your iOS or Steam account.

It's just as easy for a game developer to say "eh we're no longer using that blockchain for game assets" or otherwise make your "purchase" (which isn't really a purchase) unusable with a blockchain based solution as it is with current Steam/iOS-based systems. (Probably easier, really.)

Absolutely easier:

Steam and Apple stores have policies that merchants are legally liable for, including refund and availability policies.

Who enforces it when the creator no longer honors your token?

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#47

Post by the_other »

web4 wrote: post #17
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #7

What is the value proposition of web3 to the user? JS web apps offloaded the compute and memory onto the browser/client, web3 to offload storage costs onto the user. You will up pay for every click. web3 and metaverse feels so dystopian. but the young generations that were raised by tiktok will probably accept it.

web3 is not "pay for every click." value prop is disintermediation and decentralization. like purchasing a game asset, and not having it tied only to your iOS or Steam account.

Game devs could offer transferable content without stores if they stopped using the stores (ok, admittedly, iOS makes this harder). Web3 has nothing to do with this.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#48

Post by kkielhofner »

web4 wrote: post #6
api wrote: post #4

No because it's mostly not P2P. A lot of it is centralized. There are central servers behind things like MetaMask or hosting most NFT content.

you can point MetaMask to a different RPC endpoint or your own local node. it is like suggesting BitTorrent is centralized tech because many users download torrents on a centralized website. most NFTs (of value) are using IPFS or Arweave not a URL.

You certainly can point to a local blockchain node but the question is - have you ever run your own?

Running your own blockchain node is nothing like BitTorrent. The required storage, memory, cpu, and IOPS performance is already pushing the limits of readily available standard hardware.

This applies mostly to Ethereum. When you go to higher throughput chains like Solana and Polygon the node requirements jump to hardware that’s unobtainable/impractical for most people - top of the line NVMe drives with storage requirements beyond a single drive (typically need striping for IOPS anyway). Solana all but requires CUDA acceleration. Syncing the Solana devnet constantly uses at least 50% of my RTX 3090…

IPFS is even worse - the CPU, memory, and bandwidth requirements to do anything beyond playing around are ridiculous.

There’s a reason virtually everyone uses various node providers. This is rapidly setting the stage for all real-world uses of blockchain to end up on Web3 AWS (Alchemy, Infura, Piñata, etc).

The entire Arweave network currently hosts about 64 TB of data. In the scope of a worldwide network that’s… Not a lot.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#49

Post by rglullis »

bpeebles wrote: post #32
web4 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

web3 is not "pay for every click." value prop is disintermediation and decentralization. like purchasing a game asset, and not having it tied only to your iOS or Steam account.

It's just as easy for a game developer to say "eh we're no longer using that blockchain for game assets" or otherwise make your "purchase" (which isn't really a purchase) unusable with a blockchain based solution as it is with current Steam/iOS-based systems. (Probably easier, really.)

It's not about "game assets". It's a about having disintermediated access to the state of the "world".

Think of all the stories of startups that offer a product that locks their users and then go to be acquired/shut down by some other bigger company. If the services and the data live on the blockchain, it's guaranteed by design that the users are in control of their own data (no lock in) and that if the company just drops out of the market, others can continue using the services however they want.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#50

Post by web4 »

this article is lazy, and has no real substance.

> The Web3 community approaches this from the opposite side: Instead of a lightweight communistic take, they follow a heavyweight libertarian path: Everything should be monetized.

the web is already monetized - we pay for games and game skins, software and apps, access to news, media streaming. current web2 payment and ownership model favors payment processors like VISA, and the distributors like Spotify, not the creators and consumers of this media.

> So, unless the setup and maintenance trouble of the initial setup can be reduced (and there are community efforts out there), the best way to go is the centralized model: You pay someone specific to do this. Maybe set up a not-for-profit association to provide the necessary money.

this already happens in web3. OpenSea charges 2.5% on trades for the UX and network effects they provide. other marketplaces offer 0% on trades but do not have the same reach and UX. despite this, users do have a choice to go with any service they desire, since the asset is not locked into any single walled garden.

Post reply on HN