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

51–60 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#51

Post by chrisco255 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #16
TrackerFF wrote: post #8

RE: Censorship You often see advocates of decentralization hail networks for being pro-immutability, battling censorship. How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around? I'm talking about things like CP, terrorist media, fake news, scams/frauds, and what not.

In most cases, the answer is simple: you don't. For example, IPFS "solves" this by allowing requests for takedowns per gateway. The upside of IPFS is that you can go after every host, the downside is that everyone knows what content you visit. The network still propagates the illegal content, so you end up with a witch hunt. It's probably a good thing paedophiles haven't widely discovered IPFS+TOR.

IPFS would make it easier to identify non-modified content hosts since the hash is always consistent. It's far easier to bury something using standard HTTP or HTTPS or even FTP.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#52

Post by corobo »

wildbook wrote: post #35
api wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal. I've heard this called a "pee in the pool attack." Block chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin have one intrinsic defense: they don't support very large data objects. So that makes inserting CP problematic. But someone determined enough and willing to spend…

How about cases where there's not much data involved but it's still questionable whether or not the data is legal to share? Leaked encryption keys for example come to mind, but I'm sure there's other examples.

That one Blu-ray code would be interesting to see play out in a web3 world.

E: I realise after digging it back up it's what you said with encryption keys but maybe someone else wants to look at the link too or whatever

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

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#53

Post by root_axis »

Uehreka wrote: post #33
whoisjuan wrote: post #25

I 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…

How is it any better than OpenID? OpenID doesn't require a blockchain at least.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#55

Post by delaaxe »

pavlov wrote: post #46
Uehreka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The mainstream public doesn't want their identity attached to a private key that they can lose. And if you're letting someone else store the key, then it's just another form of "Login with X".

Unless the 'someone else' is a multisig consisting of a mixture of friends & relatives, instutitions and hardware devices.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#56

Post by chrisco255 »

daoismyname wrote: post #23

that Web2 VS Web3 schema pretty much summarize what's wrong with the new internet based on brand identities instead of technical merits. A brief rebuttal: - Twitter can censor any account or Tweet: yes, but Twitter is not the web, you can host your own tweets, even for free. - Web3 tweets are better because decentralized: translations -> your thought are going to be forever visible to everybody and not even the autho…

If you create a "web3" website, it's up to you how decentralized you want that experience to be. You could have your content hosted on Filecoin, perform computation on ICP or Arweave, provide IPFS hashes to your users using open standards (HTML, JSON, Markdown, etc) with simple export functionality, open source code, ENS domain, etc.

If you take payments on your site via crypto, I'm not sure what you mean by "not accepting payments from criminals", as this is not a service provided by Visa or MasterCard either. I have a feeling running a criminal background check on all your users might impact your conversion rate, but you are as free to do that in Web3 as in Web2. (What are you selling that you would need to be concerned with such things anyways? If I'm selling an honest product or service, I don't care who buys it.)

There is no SLA. If you need an SLA you can create a hybrid site that both stores files in a central server and also backs them up to Filecoin or Arweave or Sia or Chia or whatever file network you like. But decentralization does tend to lend itself to resiliency, for example, Ethereum has 100% uptime over the past 6 years.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#57

Post by malermeister »

rglover wrote: post #49
TrackerFF wrote: post #8

RE: Censorship You often see advocates of decentralization hail networks for being pro-immutability, battling censorship. How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around? I'm talking about things like CP, terrorist media, fake news, scams/frauds, and what not.

> How does it deal with data you absolutely do _NOT_ want to be shared and propagated around? That is censorship. The correct answer is you don't. When you obscure evil, it propagates. When you shine a light on it, it disinfects. Awareness of the thing leads to discernment of the thing. Unless you think people are default evil, bad ideas will stay bad ideas without an intermediary forcing their will upon them.

That is an incredibly naive view of the world. Just look at all the disinformation rampant on Facebook and the antivax hellscape we now live in. You can't possibly look at that and think things got "disinfected" through awareness.

> Unless you think people are default evil, bad ideas will stay bad ideas without an intermediary forcing their will upon them.

This is also not correct. People aren't neccessarily evil by default, but they are stupid and easily manipulable. Just look at QAnon for another example.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#58

Post by mrisse »

I really enjoyed this article and appreciated the author's sober take. That said I'm a little more optimistic about Web3.

While NFTs can be confusing, over-hyped, or even fraudulent it is clear that they give artists new power. The power to create a scarce resource, prove that they created it, and sell it for substantially more than they could could otherwise sell electronic collectibles. How much of this is due to hype and how much is due to the ability to record and validate the "deed" to the NFT on the blockchain? I think that's an open question that will be more clear over time.

The author also understates the importance of DAOs and smart contracts imo. The real power of a DAOs or smart contracts is not in replacing financial instruments, but in replacing legal ones. I think in a short amount of time it will not be unusual to see wills executed via smart contracts.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#59

Post by UncleMeat »

serverholic wrote: post #5
theplumber wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends much of expectations. It actually exceeded my expectations. I recently built a small and useless program in solidity and deployed it within few hours. It's definitely better than what we had available years ago (i.e. on bitcoin platform) and I see a future for it. I think it has chances to survive in this age of censorship and surveillance. Something that really surprised me was the signing/metamas…

"Sign-In with Ethereum" will be huge. I purposefully avoid "Sign-in with Google" because putting too much power in a centralized authority terrifies me. I'd much rather have the convenience of "Sign-In with X" but backed by something I have control over.

What is the difference between "Sign-in with Ethereum" and the signature-based auth that has been available for decades without blockchains?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#60

Post by _jal »

delaaxe wrote: post #55
pavlov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mainstream public doesn't want their identity attached to a private key that they can lose. And if you're letting someone else store the key, then it's just another form of "Login with X".

Unless the 'someone else' is a multisig consisting of a mixture of friends & relatives, instutitions and hardware devices.

And those institutions where everyone knows you go to register and hardware devices everyone trusts don't exist, so you're back to

> doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet

Post reply on HN