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

481–490 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#481

Post by kranke155 »

darkFunction wrote: post #237
dperfect wrote: post #78

I completely agree with the author. I've been reading a lot about the EVM, and while there's some interesting technology involved, it feels unlikely to be able to support any worthwhile applications outside of blockchain finance or moving $ around the world[0] (since the code can really only directly reference the blockchain itself). It's a bit like playing with a programming language in a sandbox that has (1) has no…

> (1) has no I/O functions Input: User identity, money. Output: Digital services, site subscriptions, digital assets, in-game items, NFT's representing real world assets held by trusted companies (wine, event tickets, tokenized securities). None of this requires oracles and exists today. Your mistake is thinking that just because the base layer is decentralised that we're somehow not allowed to connect to companies w…

HN mostly doesn’t think NFTs work or have a purpose, even though they have 1 million+ users or so. They’re denying gravity after Newton at this point.

All the arguments here are tech stack obsessions instead of looking at real world use.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#482

Post by [deleted] »

rgallagher27 wrote: post #461
koonsolo wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that you can pick the exchange where you trade your token. Because the ownership of the token is really yours. If the central party charges 1% transaction fee, it's a 1% transaction fee. If they only open on weekdays, you can't trade in the weekend, etc. When it's your token, you can trade it wherever you want.

You might want to avoid mentioning transaction fees when trying to promote the benefits of crypto...

[deleted]

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#483

Post by biztos »

CJefferson wrote: post #407
bsnsmsksjs wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll bite. A winery could sell ownership of wine stored or wine yet to be made. The purchaser, if sold via an NFT, could resell that ownership with no interaction with the winery until claiming the wine at a later date. This means both parties no longer need any relationship between the initial sale and claiming the eventual goods. The winery will simply be able to wait for someone to return with proof of ownership a…

The problem with this type of thing (to me) is always what happens when reality meets the blockchain? What is someone steals my NFT? I would expect a court would say the wine is still mine, so the NFT doesn't represent ownership any more. What is someone loses the private key to their NFT? Do we just throw the wine down the drain? Again no.

The NFT is supposed to work like a bearer bond. You have to trust the issuing entity to honor it, but beyond that, possession is 10 tenths of the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_bond

IIRC with wine futures you have to either collect your wine or pay for its storage, if you abandon it then at some point (per the contract) it belongs to the winery. At least with wine I think there is a lot of precedent here, there are norms you’d want to fit your crypto doings around.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#484

Post by koonsolo »

rgallagher27 wrote: post #461
koonsolo wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that you can pick the exchange where you trade your token. Because the ownership of the token is really yours. If the central party charges 1% transaction fee, it's a 1% transaction fee. If they only open on weekdays, you can't trade in the weekend, etc. When it's your token, you can trade it wherever you want.

You might want to avoid mentioning transaction fees when trying to promote the benefits of crypto...

For example Nano has 0 fee, sub-second transactions, so no, I'll keep mentioning it.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#485

Post by darkFunction »

dperfect wrote: post #268
darkFunction wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) has no I/O functions Input: User identity, money. Output: Digital services, site subscriptions, digital assets, in-game items, NFT's representing real world assets held by trusted companies (wine, event tickets, tokenized securities). None of this requires oracles and exists today. Your mistake is thinking that just because the base layer is decentralised that we're somehow not allowed to connect to companies w…

> Output: Digital services, site subscriptions, digital assets, in-game items, NFT's representing real world assets held by trusted companies (wine, event tickets, tokenized securities). > None of this requires oracles and exists today. While I only mentioned oracles specifically, I should have clarified: I'm referring both to oracles (making queries to external data sources and providing the results to the blockchai…

> So, honest question: why care about the base layer being decentralized if in the end, you choose to trust those companies? What did the decentralization do for you in that interaction?

My trust extended only as far as a single interaction/asset. The rest of my wallet and the assets within are completely unaffected. A company might rip me off, and I might have legal recourse, or I might not. Such is life. We won't ever be able to decentralise away all trust. A single entity isn't able to manipulate all my assets, or print more tokens, or confiscate my money. The network is solid even if all the 'performers' are not.

To build a centralised 'universal API' on which applications can communicate and exchange value is a terrible idea. Who would own it? But such an API is surely a useful technology.

We do need reliable oracles for external data feeds- prices, weather, news... can all feed into contracts for extra utility. This is a hard problem being tackled by ChainLink and others.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#486

Post by kranke155 »

darkFunction wrote: post #237
dperfect wrote: post #78

I completely agree with the author. I've been reading a lot about the EVM, and while there's some interesting technology involved, it feels unlikely to be able to support any worthwhile applications outside of blockchain finance or moving $ around the world[0] (since the code can really only directly reference the blockchain itself). It's a bit like playing with a programming language in a sandbox that has (1) has no…

> (1) has no I/O functions Input: User identity, money. Output: Digital services, site subscriptions, digital assets, in-game items, NFT's representing real world assets held by trusted companies (wine, event tickets, tokenized securities). None of this requires oracles and exists today. Your mistake is thinking that just because the base layer is decentralised that we're somehow not allowed to connect to companies w…

HN users only see an inferior tech stack, but fail to understand that an inferior tech stack might have Greater Utility for the common people.

HN users earn their living by being the best at what they do and choosing the best tech stack is a part of it, which is why they don’t understand blockchain. It’s an inferior tech stack, but it beats every other stack on game theory, which is not the usual purview of the average developer. Hence they reject it as “inefficient” because they keep looking at it through the prism of tech instead of society.

For society trustless distributed systems are better, but if you keep looking at it from a tech/throughout perspective, you’ll never get it.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#487

Post by koonsolo »

lottin wrote: post #427
koonsolo wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here lies the problem: you live in the present, I live in the future. And right now, I don't see any reason why that can't be fixed in the future.

You said blockchains are more practical, in the present tense. The evidence strongly suggests that's not true. And there are plenty of reasons to think they will continue to be impractical in the future.

There is also no central winery exchange system.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#488

Post by pjc50 »

biztos wrote: post #470
lottin wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if they could have that power? Imagine something like Robocop hooked up to the EVM, if you put your RealID in the escrow contract and then the ubiquitous camera network is unable to verify that you honored the transaction, well then you have 15 seconds to comply…

I worry that this is the endgame; you say "distributed organisation", I say "autonomous cyberweapon".

We're not that far from having a DAO that can bid on zero-days and use them against a list of targets of its choice. If a DAO can make POST requests it can launch exploits. A script kiddie without the kiddie.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#489

Post by jbverschoor »

Animats wrote: post #99

OK. The reason all this happening is that Bitcoin really did go to the moon. That's what powers all this speculation. If the price of Bitcoin had been stable for a decade, and it worked reliably, it would be a useful medium of exchange, but nobody would care. This is all about MAKE MONEY FAST. Bitcoin found some early use cases. Drugs first. Then getting money out of China. Money laundering. Tax evasion. Scams. Bitco…

Same can be said for any startup, market or business.

Technology is not what makes Uber, Airbnb, Booking.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#490

Post by jbverschoor »

Joeboy wrote: post #480
grey-area wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, tens of billions of dollars, not trillions, my mistake. They are currently adding 1 billion a day at times, where does that money come from? Does anyone really believe 78,423,306,967 USD are currently invested in Tether?

I don't know anything about anything, but I see Wikipedia says Tether is 65% "backed by commercial paper". Which as far as I can tell basically means IOUs, but IOUs that are considered somewhat legit. It definitely seems questionable, but I'm not really sure how to assess how bad it is or isn't. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency) Edit: I see elsewhere somebody saying "nobody in the commercial pa…

Banks don't have to back the dollar by anything anymore.
Post reply on HN