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

61–70 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#61

Post by shagie »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #48
knownjorbist wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key "ah-ha" moment for me was realizing that your wallet is your login on every dApp that's ever existed or ever will exist. It's pseudonymous and developers sort of get various things for free out of it as a result(payments, authorization, authentication)

There's also the potentially interesting idea of wallet-as-resume. IE allowing different types of access depending on what sorts of things you've done with your wallet in the past. Certainly not for all applications, but a certain level of implied competency might be appropriate in some cases.

I've heard that one before... I've yet to hear a "how is it better" set down in a way that describes the architecture in a way that can be explored with more than handwavium.

How does "wallet as resume" solve the implied competency better than a GitHub repo with signed commits?

How does the wallet-as-resume solve the "I copied a project" or "I followed the tutorial line for line?" One can create a NFT or whatever equivalent for code you wrote just as easily as code you copied (be it with cp or typing it all in yourself). Can only one person would be verify a particular implementation of FizzBuzz? If the code is copied, can the original author usurp the "I wrote this" from a pretender?

Does anyone reading resumes actually think that this is a problem that needs solving?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#62

Post by UncleMeat »

Uehreka wrote: post #26
yepthatsreality wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like OpenID?

I’m a long time blockchain skeptic (check my comment history) but I recently came around on the SSO stuff and can vouch for it enough to say the magic words: it is in fact a novel thing that cannot be done without blockchain using pre-existing crypto or auth tech. The reason is: With private key auth alone, you don’t have identity, just a non-human readable public key, and no universally known exclusive association w…

I don't see how this is beneficial compared to signature-based auth. Didn't people all recoil in horror at the real-names policy that Google performed ages ago? Making it fundamentally difficult to separate my identity on various platforms is bad. And further, I really don't see the benefit of having my username stored on a blockchain rather than in an application database. Is the goal to prevent other people from making an account using the same username that I use on other platforms?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#63

Post by iskander »

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 own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency.

This is entirely personal and subjective, but I prefer the user experience of Aave and Yearn to traditional banking with e.g. Chase. I also would way rather make large purchases with crypto (e.g. down payment on a house) compared with wiring money.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#64

Post by UncleMeat »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #48
knownjorbist wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key "ah-ha" moment for me was realizing that your wallet is your login on every dApp that's ever existed or ever will exist. It's pseudonymous and developers sort of get various things for free out of it as a result(payments, authorization, authentication)

There's also the potentially interesting idea of wallet-as-resume. IE allowing different types of access depending on what sorts of things you've done with your wallet in the past. Certainly not for all applications, but a certain level of implied competency might be appropriate in some cases.

"Service X preemptively bans me because I signed up for service Y with my wallet" sounds like the opposite of censorship resistance and decentralization.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#65

Post by yokem55 »

bsid wrote: post #47
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…

$150+ to own one for a year?

It's $5/yr in eth for the actual registration fee. The problem is that the transaction fee gas to register and maintain that registration is steep. So it's fairly common to register your ens for multiple years to save on gas. Once L2's/rollups are more mature and under community control, I expect ens to migrate to one and cut those transaction fees down substantially.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#66

Post by uh_uh »

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 this is something that could power reversible transactions as well which I think is a current, but solvable problem of all crypto platforms.

What you are proposing is actually a lot better than the tech we have now. If I ever lose my Google login and their customer service does not want to deal with me then honestly, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd rather trust my friends and family to help me out than FAANG.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#67

Post by cesarb »

api wrote: post #18
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto proponents are in favor of there being no technical restrictions that prevent such content being posted. An interesting possibility is that illegal content gets permanently inserted into a blockchain, which could make running, for example, an ethereum node very illegal.

> 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…

At least for Bitcoin, there's another defense: what the blockchain actually stores on each block is the root of a Merkle tree which has the transactions as leaves. It's possible to discard unwanted transactions, and that only loses the ability of verifying newer transactions which chain to these discarded transactions. (AFAIK, the original intention was that most nodes would discard old "spent" transactions, to reduce the size of their local database.)

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#68

Post by UncleMeat »

theplumber wrote: post #28
justicezyx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you need to pay someone to deploy the program?

ETH is expensive but there are other "cheaper" blockchains compatible with ETH whose "gas" price is negligible. You can also deploy for free on the "testnet"

A major reason why those blockchains have lower fees is because speculators have not driven up their token price. Unless there is some fundamental reason why the fees will stay low, you've got a time bomb on your hands as soon as people decide that this blockchain is a major speculation vehicle.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#69

Post by shagie »

Uehreka wrote: post #26
yepthatsreality wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like OpenID?

I’m a long time blockchain skeptic (check my comment history) but I recently came around on the SSO stuff and can vouch for it enough to say the magic words: it is in fact a novel thing that cannot be done without blockchain using pre-existing crypto or auth tech. The reason is: With private key auth alone, you don’t have identity, just a non-human readable public key, and no universally known exclusive association w…

The potential for doxing in this is... so here's your identity so that you can be the same individual on multiple sites.

Someone else posts into the blockchain that jondoe.eth public_key "420abc..." is {this real data about the person}.

And now that identity and every login it is associated with has been doxed in a permeant, public, and unalterable way.

If someone doxes my gmail account, I can go through the process of dissociating myself with that identity and hopefully the provider were that doxing is stored could be persuaded to delete that content (yes, the internet has a long memory).

This would seem to be much harder if not impossible with an identity stored on a public blockchain (that also allows for other data to be stored).

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#70

Post by chpmrc »

> NFTs prove neither ownership nor uniqueness

Except that's literally what they do, using a combination of digital signatures and timestamp. You can have a copy of the same NFT even on a different chain but the timestamp will be higher, therefore proving it's not the original.

Plus the problem of referencing the content is solved by having all data on chain (likely on layer 2). Recurring problems in the world of art trade such as provenance, certification etc. are elegantly solved by NFTs.

> someone copied and pasted this guy’s real-life artwork, created an NFT out of it

Ironically that's exactly because the artwork was not (referenced) on chain. If that was the case any subsequent copy would not be recognized as the original because of the timestamp and wouldn't have nearly the same value. That's why a simple digital signature scheme based on something like Keybase wouldn't work.

I understand and appreciate the author's skepticism but, IMHO, he did end up looking like David Letterman in that video.

Post reply on HN