Web3 is all about not trusting big tech corps but trusting few hustlers, TikTok influencers, NFT enthusiasts who seem to have users best interest and know all about the tech.
Web3? I have my DAOts
491–500 of 636 posts
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#492I 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…
Just took a look at ENS, within 5 mins I was able to find .eth's first and last name, who they work for, their LinkedIN profile, their ETH address, how much they have in crypto holdings, what NFT's they buy/sell and full tx history... Who wants that?
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also would way rather make large purchases with crypto (e.g. down payment on a house) For a purchase that large, I would rather make it in person. With a check. Which is way more secure than crypto or a wire transfer.
I haven’t even seen a check in decades. It’s incredible to me that you think a piece of paper and human contact is secure.
that's by law in Italy
Both parties have to be present in person and sign the documents in front of a notary that also collect copies of the checks emitted directly by the bank at the moment and write down their id number on the deeds
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
An article from a bit ago to put approximate scale of the services - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/20... > Climate researchers say two Google searches emit 7g of CO2 – the same as boiling an electric kettle. > ... > If Wissner-Gross is correct then 3,500 tonnes of CO2 (500m x 0.000007 tonnes) are emitted every day through all of us performing Google searches. Or put another way, 1.28m tonn…
Whoa, so Ethereum is burning 64 kWh per transaction? I wonder if there is any mapping of “gas” to electricity. I guess it would have to be approximate but still, it’d be interesting to estimate how much electricity a particular smart contract consumed per execution.
This is the entire point of most PoW mechanisms. It's a way of "proving" that an miner expended a certain amount of effort or energy to validate a transaction. It also requires that expenditure to be significant enough that gaming the system is expensive. As a result most of of them scale as the effort inevitably get's easier thus ensuring that the energy required to validate a transaction will only ever be capable of growing not shrinking. If it is allowed to shrink the consensus properties start to fail. Whether you think this is a worthy use of that energy will depend on how much benefit you think the consensus properties of your particular PoW implementation are providing.
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great! Hey look I would like to send you the rights to my crate of wine. You're the 1000th customer to my site. Or maybe you want to trade it for your in-game weapon. Or I just like you and it's a gift, anonymous internet user. Of course I could just transfer directly to your Ethereum wallet. But why do that when I could explain you need to sign up to 'winespectator.com', I'll email them to arrange the ownersh…
> 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…
The interesting thing is not that you would need a blockchain to trade wine futures — obviously you don’t.
The interesting thing is that if you can sell the futures as (for example) NFTs then you put them into this Wild West of crypto enthusiasts where
1) All kinds of unpredictable things might happen to the token between sale and redemption! And
2) The culture of crypto enthusiasts might very well lead to much higher prices for your wine than people who actually know about wine think it’s worth, cf. Beeple.
Either or both of these things might motivate a winery to give it a shot, tokenize a few thousand future cases of their weakest plonk, and see what happens.
Just because your market works fine without the blockchain doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be gained by trying.
On the other hand, it might be illegal because: alcohol.
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#496Hard to be more wrong in this subject. You sound exactly like David Letterman.
Technical issues always get solved. All of this is misconceptions, poorly informed takes, or poor implementations that are true today but won’t be there tomorrow.
My take on this is that HN users are tech stack obsessed.
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.
The trick to this is understanding the following - nobody trusts you to hold a centralised database. Stop talking about centralised databases - centralised databases did not solve the digital art problem. NFTs did. Centralised databases mean we have to trust you - the developer - and your company or business. But we don’t. Nobody does, and neither do you if you’re completely honest with yourself. How many times has a developer changed or deleted a service you needed and you had no recourse whatsoever ? How often are services “sunsetted” alongside the entire database?
Stop looking at it as a tech stack problem, and start looking at it as a trust problem. People don’t trust you to run their services, for good reason, and they would much prefer an open source, immutable, decentralised ledger than your SQL, 10 times out of 10.
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#497Earlier 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…
This is a strawman. The entire ecosystem does not have to be 100% decentralised. There is massive utility in a trustless, permissionless, censorship-resistant contract layer connecting disparate centralised entities. A centrally managed registry would never be suitable for this task for a multitude of obvious reasons.
> There is massive utility in a trustless, permissionless, censorship-resistant contract layer connecting disparate centralised entities.
No, there's no utility in that, if ultimately enforcement relies on an entity that needs to be trusted and can override the blockchain.
> A centrally managed registry would never be suitable for this task for a multitude of obvious reasons.
Centrally-managed registries are already in use and have been in use for a long time, they exist in every single country, and entire markets depends upon them, but somehow they "would never be suitable for obvious reasons"? They have already been shown to be suitable, what on earth are you talking about?
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... Why did you write it? Of course you don't need blockchains to do this. 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.
The blockchain facilities standardised transfer across a decentralised medium. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my point. You could code alternatives to all the use-cases mentioned, but when you have an existing platform on which to interact, why bother? You want the game developers to implement the winery's API?
> The blockchain facilities standardised transfer across a decentralised medium.
It hasn't. It standardised the transfer of otherwise meaningless numbers, that's true.
In order for your winde order to work, a centralised, trusted party has to verify and accept those numbers, and say that, yes, they represent something meaningful to them.
The same goes for every other example. "Want to trade something for an in-game weapon": This only works if that game a) provides means of trading in-game items, b) can verify that a number in the blockchain actually represents an in-game item etc.
Without countless external entities agreeing to and cooperating on the meaning of this data this "standardised transfer" is literally meaningless. And these agreements will go as well as they already do in reality. How does blockchain factor into this?
> if you're trading that weapon let's both sign up for a pre-agreed escrow service online and pay them a commission to arbitrage.
Now who's attacking straw men.
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa, so Ethereum is burning 64 kWh per transaction? I wonder if there is any mapping of “gas” to electricity. I guess it would have to be approximate but still, it’d be interesting to estimate how much electricity a particular smart contract consumed per execution.
This is the entire point of most PoW mechanisms. It's a way of "proving" that an miner expended a certain amount of effort or energy to validate a transaction. It also requires that expenditure to be significant enough that gaming the system is expensive. As a result most of of them scale as the effort inevitably get's easier thus ensuring that the energy required to validate a transaction will only ever be capable o…
I’m not questioning PoW per se, I was just surprised it worked out to that much per transaction.
Re: Web3? I have my DAOts
#500Hard to be more wrong in this subject. You sound exactly like David Letterman. Technical issues always get solved. All of this is misconceptions, poorly informed takes, or poor implementations that are true today but won’t be there tomorrow. My take on this is that HN users are tech stack obsessed. HN users only see an inferior tech stack, but fail to understand that an inferior tech stack might have Greater Utility…
Did you read the article?
> Technical issues always get solved.
There are deeper issues with crypto than just technical. Even if it wasn't.
Crypto is like every anarchistic idea implemented in reality. In essence, they are burning the wheel, only to reinvent it again. Badly.