411–420 of 636 posts
To oppose our new overlord - that would be unwise. So all in on crypto, even though its financially bad advise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> and this is new, how? The web is not decentralized today. We are routing vast majority of web traffic through a handful of monopolies that control all forms of monetization that don't involve crypto. Google + Facebook own the ad market. Paypal owns the payments market and where they aren't, VISA + MasterCard are used directly. We have seen deplatforming, censorship, antitrust behavior, price fixing, shadow banning,…
THAT'S NOT THE WEB!
I also reject the claim that they represent the vast majority of the traffic
> No, it's not. It is perfectly okay to sell food to anyone
but it's not OK to sell any kind of food, clothes, or any other product. so I want to know who's selling the food to me.
suppose I buy some food from you and end up in the ER to get my stomach pumped.
Who is responsible?
what's their name and address?
> it is really okay my dude.
can you sell dog meat?
and what makes web3 better since it would allow it with no consequences?
> Google Search isn't a deterministic cryptographic computation engine
so what?
do you really think google is not using every trick in the book to keep their search engine running? (including decentralization)
do you really think that "decentralization" means no downtime, because MAGIC?
> It's a manipulated, censored, monopoly-owned search engine that propels its own products and services to the top.
web3 is THE PRODUCT so some uber rich entity can amass more coins, without any regulation
sounds better to you?
> What's your big idea for dealing with the above?
alternative real platforms, not alternative dream platforms.
GNU Taler IMO is a better option for people looking for anonymity and it works with the current system, not against it.
But, again, there is no money in Taker, no going to the moon, no pump and dump, no get rich quick.
If you were looking for a solution, you'll invest in something more like Taker than web3, and yet...
but seriously, taking a stance against those actions through political means, it has orders of magnitude more chances of success.
because if you think that what's censored today will be tolerated tomorrow because CRYPTO you're delusional.
ANYWAY
you have not answered my question: why would I go through all those lengths to run a web site, while today gitlab pages is free and works as intended?
if you think that the proposition of crypto is (unproven) resistance to censorship, than you should sell the solution to those that have been censored, not to me. why are you selling to the general public something that has no value for the general public (and would cost them more)?
my feeling is that the people who would be interested in it are not the kind of people you would make business with or there's literally no money to be made (I doubt helping Tibetan people is interesting enough for crypto maniacs, they aren't rich and are not interested in making money)...
So if you think thats skins bought in games by kid gamers is better of by being owned by the gaming company than the gamer who bought it.
If you think that governments printing money at will to solve problems they created is better than having more deflatory assets available for normal citizens who cant afford a house.
If you think the current cobol and pre internet protocol based banking system is better than a more flexible system allowing for solutions which were impossible before.
If you think that the digital world should be governed using physical world tools.
If you think only accredited investors should be able to make high risk bets.
Then by all means be against Web3. But this idea that only if perfect is it worth moving forward with web3 is an absurd standard only allowed by philosophers and other academics who dont actually move the world forward.
And yes Web3 have its own set of problems, but they are much better problems to have than a world without Web3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> If you create a "web3" website, it's up to you how decentralized you want that experience to be > and this is new, how? It's not about decentralization, it's about decentralized trust. Why would you give someone's random website (or random gofundme) $1k? Maybe that decision would change if there was a smart contract which forced them to spend the money how you expected.
for no reason
and I won't do it in the future
listen, smart contracts aren't more secure as other contracts today, that have been read by lawyers and proven in court for decades and still they are not to be trusted in full.
this difference being there are far more lawyers than people who can read and understand a smart contract
you live in the world of wishful thinking (not wanting to think you are deliberately lying) I live in real world where smart contract means nothing, it only works in very small communities where everybody already know and trust each other
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do all those things without a blockchain. It's just more practical using a blockchain. I used to survive without a cellphone. It wasn't hard. You just called your friends when you and they were at home.
> It's just more practical using a blockchain. The popularity of centralised exchanges vis-a-vis blockchain wallets suggests the opposite is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I trade my wine in the weekend? Ah no, sorry, stock market is closed then. Can I trade my wine at 5pm? Ah no, European wine stock market is closed then. When you really 'own' the ticket, you can trade it anywhere you want, without being dependent on some exchange that's only open whenever and takes some fixed cut without any competition.
The fact that you can't trade on weekends is not because some technological problem, it's because there's no demand for trading on weekends. Do you think the technology suddenly stops working on weekends?
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…
I've looked into some of the engineering that goes into Web3, and while I'm incredibly impressed, I can't quite shake the feeling that all we're doing is getting really good at counting paperclips. What real world problems does Web3 solve? It seems like Web3 has a ton of great solutions to problems that Web3 creates. Most problems that Web3 claim to solve can be solved through non blockchain solutions and even decent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hey look I would like to send you the rights to my crate of wine. You truly believe this can't be done without blockchain? > You're the 1000th customer to my site. You truly believe you can't track customers without blockchain? > Or maybe you want to trade me for that in-game weapon. You truly believe it's impossible to implement in-game trading without blockchain? > Of course I could just transfer directly to your…
I think instead of reading what I wrote, you read "you need a blockchain to do this". The anti-blockchain narrative on here is constantly attacking the strawman of "literally everything must be decentralised". I'm arguing that a decentralised medium of exchange through which separate points of centralisation can interact is still a useful construct. You're comfortable with your assets being codified in a thousand dif…
To reiterate: The only thing you could transfer is some meaningless numbers. What makes them meaningful is some central, trusted authority that will accept these numbers as proof of something. But then, since you depend on that authority to verify this... you don't need blockchain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same thing about property deeds, contracts, etc. The fact that the laws of physics still apply in the world and thus people can still physically take things from you, harm you, etc. is hardly an argument against any specific method for establishing and recording ownership or contracts.
No, the basic problem is ownership rights over physical objects can't be enforced without coercive power, but blockchains and smart contracts can't use coercive power, therefore they would have to rely on an external entity to enforce such rights. But then the system is no longer "trustless", "permissionless", or "censorship-resistant", and therefore we have none of the supposed benefits of blockchains but we do have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hey look I would like to send you the rights to my crate of wine. You truly believe this can't be done without blockchain? > You're the 1000th customer to my site. You truly believe you can't track customers without blockchain? > Or maybe you want to trade me for that in-game weapon. You truly believe it's impossible to implement in-game trading without blockchain? > Of course I could just transfer directly to your…
You can do all those things without a blockchain. It's just more practical using a blockchain. I used to survive without a cellphone. It wasn't hard. You just called your friends when you and they were at home.
In which shape, way, or form is it more practical with a blockchain?