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

471–480 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#471

Post by ehnto »

dylkil wrote: post #371
discardedrefuse wrote: post #330

I've been noticing this web3 buzzword picking up steam on here for months now. And it all feels very manufactured (much how metaverse has been co-opted and tainted by Facebook). I suspect this web3 push is just cryptobros shoehorning their schemes into relevance. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=web3 On the other hand, if you're paying attention, you might have noticed a push back to web1 and even older tec…

what you are noticing is increased interest in permissionless data. But sure, reframe everything you think of as bad thought as manufactured.

Web 3 is already being commandeered by hyper-growth marketing bullshit, cool ideas or not it will end up being just a slogan to try and hawk technology to people.

If permissionless data provides value it will prosper in spite of the marketing buzz. Same thing happened in Web2.0. There is no real delineation between Web1, 2, 3, it's just marketing.

Re: Why Web3?

#472

Post by galaxyLogic »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #143
galaxyLogic wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> introducing artificial tokens, quietly giving a huge number of those tokens to founders and early investors (in exchange for actual money, of course), and then hyping the platform to the moon so everyone can cash out their tokens to a new wave of speculators. In other words a Ponzi-scheme

It's a ponzi-scheme if there's no value behind the hype. it's not inherently a ponzi scheme. It's the same way in the current private equity start-up world just that only VC's and connected individuals are exposed to the all the risk and all the profit.

You could say that there is value behind a Ponzi scheme as long as there are more people willing to get onboard the Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme can make a few "early adopters" rich

Re: Why Web3?

#473

Post by namose »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #462
namose wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a limit to artists’ ability to do this. It’s called copyright law and it’s enforced by a central authority. Unfortunately no such central authority exists in the NFT space, so it’s perfectly within anyone’s rights and abilities to copy an artwork and sell it as their own.

When you say "sell an artwork" do you mean sell all rights to it or license its copying for personal use etc? Copyright and contract law still applies. But how does it apply to NFTs?

It doesn’t. Or it will some day, either way, this is the point. It’s still going to require a centralized authority to enforce fair use, ultimately making it no different than any other method of distributing art.

Re: Why Web3?

#474

Post by CryptoPunk »

IgorPartola wrote: post #449
everfree wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization" Some popular types of Layer 2s, namely zk rollups, have on-chain data and on-chain transaction verification, so I believe you are wrong on this count.

I guess I am really out of touch but I understood about two and a half words of what you just said.

It means that everything you need to arrive at a consensus on the validity of a transaction is on the blockchain, and thus enforced by the decentralized network of nodes that validate the blockchain.

So contrary to what the grandparent comment claims, these layer 2 (i.e. scalability) solutions make no compromises on decentralization, as they would if they had a consensus-critical component that was managed by a centralized off-chain party.

Re: Why Web3?

#475

Post by manojlds »

IgorPartola wrote: post #449
everfree wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization" Some popular types of Layer 2s, namely zk rollups, have on-chain data and on-chain transaction verification, so I believe you are wrong on this count.

I guess I am really out of touch but I understood about two and a half words of what you just said.

It's a bit like having an in-mem db that then commits your transactions to the actual DB which is much slower.

Re: Why Web3?

#476

Post by everfree »

gameswithgo wrote: post #376
andybak wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people who made a decent living from sneaker trading though.

you can make a decent living in all kinds of nonsense if you can either find a way to predict collective mood swings or just get lucky. with millions of people scheming at blockchain stuff there will be thousands getting lucky over and over thinking they are smart

Most of the entertainment industry is about predicting collective mood swings.

Re: Why Web3?

#477

Post by galaxyLogic »

jandrese wrote: post #154
galaxyLogic wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A NFT is just a digital receipt, and there's nothing that ties the receipt to the original creator or work except for a bit of text that the person creating the NFT has full control over. So they are effectively worthless for determining ownership, especially for copyright purposes. The "non-fungible" part refers only to the receipt, not the original work.

> NFT is just a digital receipt

Right but a receipt of what? A receipt, evidence, or proof, that a transaction took place. But a transaction of what? One party got money. What did the other party get? A proof that s/he paid the money. For what? For the proof that s/he paid the money ... for the proof that s/he paid the money for the proof that ... LOL.

Makes me think that I should make an NFT out of Brooklyn Bridge. That might gain lots of fame and thus lots of value?

Re: Why Web3?

#478

Post by CryptoPunk »

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"…

>>NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures.

A credibly open and neutral protocol for holding and trading digital assets is not something digital signatures can provide alone. Digital signatures do not solve the double spending problem without trusted third parties. Thus far only blockchains have been able to provide this set of qualities.

>>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.

Digital signatures provide no guarantees about data processing and availability. Massively distributed public blockchains do.

Re: Why Web3?

#479

Post by manojlds »

nfw2 wrote: post #407
nfw2 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skepticism was a poor choice of words on my part. I think skepticism is absolutely the right response for both sneakers and NFTs. What I should have said is that it seems a lot of people dismiss NFTs with a certainty that doesn't seem justified considering there are other collectibles like baseball cards without any inherently valuable physical properties that have retained their value long-term. I honestly don't kno…

I actually think there is an interesting and nuanced conversation to be had on what fundamentally is different between an NFT and a baseball card. But that doesn't seem to be the conversation anyone is having.

I have been thinking of this as well. Pokemon cards as NFT would work, but why would the Pokemon company (the central entity) be ok with having a decentralised solution for it? What does the company get?

NFTs need support of the big names but they already have better solutions for what they want. Currently NFTs are creating their own set of *mon cards but I don't see why I would want that.

Another example - currently digital games aren't resellable and NFTs could solve that problem. But why would Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft etc want that?

Re: Why Web3?

#480

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

dragonelite wrote: post #318
altdataseller wrote: post #10

This article is filled with absolutely 0 reasons why Web 3.0 should be taken seriously. All it says is: Web 3.0 matters because I say so. And we will prove it, Yes.. and?

It really sounds like the big data, machine learning, AI and enterprise blockchain craze from 5 years ago. Where those things were used for the most stupid things just so the marketing department could put it on a powerpoint slide.

Big data, machine learning and AI are massive sectors of the tech economy today. The only thing you demonstrate is that there is a difference between aggressive marketing leeching of the core idea and the motivations behind the core idea itself.
Post reply on HN