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

611–620 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#611

Post by lottin »

darkFunction wrote: post #610
lottin wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm talking about a global, universal API layer supporting standardised contract enforcement and value transfer between applications. What does that even mean? How is a global API going to support the enforcement of a rental agreement? Or of a bond indenture? Who is actually going to enforce the contract? And what is the role of a global API in that? And what do you mean value transfer between applications? You wan…

Ignoring the condescending tone, value is already being transferred between computer programs. Trillions of dollars per year on Ethereum alone. A lot of the volume is undeniably speculation but denying that value can be transferred on blockchain is denying reality at this point.

Ethereum allows you to transfer digital tokens from one address to another. This is what it does. Calling this "transferring value between computer programs" is both inaccurate and pompous. It's like a truck driver insisting that you call them a "transporter of value". Nobody speaks like that. Your comments consist entirely of marketing buzzwords, which is unfortunate because this is a technology site and we're trying to have an honest discussion about technology.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#612

Post by hanniabu »

shiohime wrote: post #595
serverholic wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really do more research because that's not how it'll work. The idea is that users will onboard straight to Layer 2 and stay on Layer 2. Layer 1 will only be used by protocols and extremely important transactions like nation-state transactions. You'll also be able to move between L2's via bridging protocols like Hop. This isn't just Ethereum BTW. Other chains are moving to layer 2 rollups because that's jus…

I'm simply stating how Arbitrum works today. And sure, once there's more adoption on L2s then there will be a reason to stay in the ecosystem, and I do get that it's inevitable that we'll have a multichain future (we have a multichain present anyways), but in this model I just don't understand why ETH has value in the thousands of dollars per token. The answer is simply amounting to "you cannot afford our chain so go…

That's not how it works. Amazing how you can be so confident while being so wrong.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#613

Post by darkFunction »

lottin wrote: post #611
darkFunction wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the condescending tone, value is already being transferred between computer programs. Trillions of dollars per year on Ethereum alone. A lot of the volume is undeniably speculation but denying that value can be transferred on blockchain is denying reality at this point.

Ethereum allows you to transfer digital tokens from one address to another. This is what it does. Calling this "transferring value between computer programs" is both inaccurate and pompous. It's like a truck driver insisting that you call them a "transporter of value". Nobody speaks like that. Your comments consist entirely of marketing buzzwords, which is unfortunate because this is a technology site and we're tryin…

I'm having an honest discussion. You have accused me of being "a gullible idiot", "pompous" and of using "marketing buzzwords" (which words?). You come across as being very emotionally attached to your negative opinion of the space.

Value can be transferred between programs through Ethereum. The tokens you mentioned have value, because people are willing to exchange them for money. So it's not an inaccurate statement. Web3 provides the standardised API through which these programs can communicate.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#614

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

zepto wrote: post #201
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your government was cutting off access to internet over the possibility that people might use it to conduct their business in cryptocurrency, do you think local demand for crypto would increase or decrease? The cable-cut might work for a while, but it wouldn't take too long for partition tolerant crypos emerge. You don't really need global consistency for most things, given that resources tend to be local.

> it wouldn't take too long for partition tolerant crypos emerge Wouldn’t it? This is an unsolved problem and there is nothing that implies it can ‘quickly emerge’. One of the paradoxes about crypto is that all problems with it can be quickly solved in the future, but somehow continue to exist in the present.

As far as moving the bits around goes, I think that the scuttlebutt protocol handles it nicely. And if you look at the tokenomics of CirclesUBI there's nothing to prevent partition tolerance--you already have the restriction that tokens can only move across links in the web of trust, so you'd just have to add the additional restriction that the parties involved in a transitive-trust-transaction have to be contactable for verification at the time of the transaction. Although CirclesUBI runs on Ethereum (xdai) and would have to be ported to scuttlebutt.

The plan isn't fully fleshed out: you still need to incentivize running nodes and handle cases where bad behavior on the part of node maintainers becomes transparent so that users can revoke trust in them, but my point is that this is not some blind faith in the ability of the community to adapt, but rather something that I have diagrams on my whiteboard for.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#615

Post by dredmorbius »

gfodor wrote: post #40
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.

You know how most web2 sites never delete data, but just flag it as hidden? The web3 argument is to create systems whereby this is the norm, when one chooses, with the lowest layer being durable and immutable, but a variety of higher level layers (some centralized) having the freedom to mask that data when they choose. Ultimately, the relevant question is if the root layer of open data systems should allow erasure. T…

This is simply not true.

Practices may vary by organisation and type of removal requests, but the claim that no removals occurs is absolutely false.

For legally-proscribed content, platforms will go to extraordinary lengths to remove not only the backing store but all possible CDN copies of content. This can ammount to millions or billions of items of content (multiple sizes and versions, replicated across multiple geographic locations).

Other instances in which UGC / USC (user generated/supplied content) have been removed are quite public, as with Google's shutdown and data deletion of its Google+ social network.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#616

Post by dredmorbius »

account-5 wrote: post #317
thebean11 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point you'd need additional data (which transactions) and software in order to stitch things back together, at which point is it the (disjointed, seemingly random) data that's illegal, or the instruction set that allows you to assemble it into something illegal?

If it was the disjointed seemingly random data that was illegal I think that would make the number π illegal too.

Mens rea vs. factus rea.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#617

Post by shiohime »

hanniabu wrote: post #612
shiohime wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm simply stating how Arbitrum works today. And sure, once there's more adoption on L2s then there will be a reason to stay in the ecosystem, and I do get that it's inevitable that we'll have a multichain future (we have a multichain present anyways), but in this model I just don't understand why ETH has value in the thousands of dollars per token. The answer is simply amounting to "you cannot afford our chain so go…

That's not how it works. Amazing how you can be so confident while being so wrong.

Edit - my bad, seems like the week wait is from Arbitrum to ETH. Evidently missed that when I was trying to move funds from ETH to Arb. Ah well.

Really though, unless these transactions become more obfuscated crosschain this ETH ecosystem feels like an over engineered nightmare on a chain that couldn't scale. I keep hearing from ETH maximalists like you that this is the only way, while hearing it does not have to be this way from your direct competitors.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#618

Post by JacobThreeThree »

theK wrote: post #297
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTC futures moves the price of BTC. So you don't even need any BTC to manipulate the price of BTC.

No, you need real money backing a credit line and collateral. Same as in any other futures business. This isn’t a new correlation, it is society driving the value of society’s creations.

Right, and futures markets have been proven to be the preferred vehicle for price manipulation.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#619

Post by lottin »

darkFunction wrote: post #613
lottin wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethereum allows you to transfer digital tokens from one address to another. This is what it does. Calling this "transferring value between computer programs" is both inaccurate and pompous. It's like a truck driver insisting that you call them a "transporter of value". Nobody speaks like that. Your comments consist entirely of marketing buzzwords, which is unfortunate because this is a technology site and we're tryin…

I'm having an honest discussion. You have accused me of being "a gullible idiot", "pompous" and of using "marketing buzzwords" (which words?). You come across as being very emotionally attached to your negative opinion of the space. Value can be transferred between programs through Ethereum. The tokens you mentioned have value, because people are willing to exchange them for money. So it's not an inaccurate statement…

Don't twist my words, I never said that you were a gullible idiot. I said that using the term "transferring value" is inaccurate and pompous, and that you are using marketing buzzwords. And I stand by that, "transferring value" is an example of a marketing buzzword. It's not a descriptive term, because what is being transferred is digital tokens, which may or may not have value. Whether they have value is irrelevant as far as the technology itself is concerned. I don't have anything against you personally, but this is the way I see it.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#620

Post by serverholic »

shiohime wrote: post #617
hanniabu wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. Amazing how you can be so confident while being so wrong.

Edit - my bad, seems like the week wait is from Arbitrum to ETH. Evidently missed that when I was trying to move funds from ETH to Arb. Ah well. Really though, unless these transactions become more obfuscated crosschain this ETH ecosystem feels like an over engineered nightmare on a chain that couldn't scale. I keep hearing from ETH maximalists like you that this is the only way, while hearing it does not have to be…

Ok let's talk about some ethereum competitors.

Take Solana for example. It takes a powerful computer with 128gb+ of RAM just to run a Solana node. You can run the ETH software on a raspberry pi.

High hardware requirements means fewer people can afford to join the network. This makes Solana more centralized. They also do some sketchy things. For example, in proof-of-stake algorithms the nodes vote on the next block. Solana counts votes as transactions which inflate their transactions-per-second numbers.

The Solana network has also been taken down by a software bug. This is much less likely to happen with Ethereum since there are multiple, independent development teams writing Ethereum client software. A bug in one client will only take down part of the network but not the whole thing.

Let's take another popular competitor Algorand. With Algorand they have two types of nodes relay and participant. The relay nodes take care of consensus. However, you have to send in an application to the Algorand foundation just to be allowed to run a node. There is not a lot of info on relay nodes but apparently the harware requirements are non-trivial.

Cardano I don't know as much about. However, there has been some debate over whether it's PoS algorithm is too similar to DPoS with similar vulnerabilities. Also, the founder of Cardano, Charles Hoskinson, is a known psycho and liar. This isn't just my opinion, just google him.

Polkadot has parachains which is kinda like sharding. However people are also developing Layer 2 rollups for polkadot. This helps prove my point that layer 2 isn't just an ethereum thing.

I don't really have issues with Bitcoin on a technical level, although I think they are too slow to change and adapt. Bitcoin also has multi-dollar transaction fees just like Ethereum which helps prove my point. They are also looking into layer 2 with the lightning network which, again, helps prove my point.

Overall, I really don't see any compelling alternative to what Ethereum is doing. Other chains are starting to look into similar Layer 2 solutions. Other chains are cutting corners to boost their transaction-per-second numbers. And other chains are run by questionable folks.

Post reply on HN