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

81–90 of 636 posts

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#81

Post by p2p_astroturf »

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…

tell us something we didnt already know. you can solve the speed problem by using solana or literally any of the other 100 coins that claim to be fast, or eth2 in six months

i am not even a person who is a fan of blockchains (since they are mostly poorly designed, unfounded, etc)

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#82

Post by hfj6gghgf »

mplewis wrote: post #74
iskander wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I wouldn't. The Bitcoin might not cover the down payment when it arrives ten minutes later.

If the downpayment was accepting bitcoin then it would be a set amount like 0.1btc and not a dollar value.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#83

Post by Daishiman »

gfodor wrote: post #50
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…

Even if nothing else pops out, it’s a huge error to point to illegal activity as some kind of bad, irrelevant use case. That smuggles in an assumption that lawbreakers are universally evil. There have been plenty of periods in history where those enforcing the law in a given country were the oppressors, and the resistant lawbreakers the innocent. It’s worth considering what the value proposition of crypto looks like…

Yes, but you generally can't build a business on top of an illegal industry that's closely scrutinized by law enforcement.

Already law enforcement agencies are campaigning hard against ransomware, and central banks and tax agencies investigating how people are using cryptocurrencies to launder money.

It doesn't mean it doesn't have value; it's just that the real expected value can't be expected to have legitimate businesses on top.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#84

Post by deltaeerie »

UncleMeat wrote: post #59
serverholic wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

People are actually using it.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#85

Post by daoismyname »

gfodor wrote: post #50
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…

Even if nothing else pops out, it’s a huge error to point to illegal activity as some kind of bad, irrelevant use case. That smuggles in an assumption that lawbreakers are universally evil. There have been plenty of periods in history where those enforcing the law in a given country were the oppressors, and the resistant lawbreakers the innocent. It’s worth considering what the value proposition of crypto looks like…

> It’s worth considering what the value proposition of crypto looks like if you were to find yourself living under an illegitimate authority

The cables where communications pass through are protected by armies

If crypto eventually could pose a threat to those illegitimate authorities, they would give orders to cut the cables and games would be over.

they could also trace them back to your house.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#86

Post by brandonmenc »

iskander wrote: post #63
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.

> 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.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#87

Post by rglover »

malermeister wrote: post #79
heyitsguay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also misses the point for a large class of data relevant to individual safety - if GP gets associated (truly or falsely) with [outrage of the week] and his buddy from HS recognizes the username, what happens when said buddy posts his address (or his kid's school address?) to an immutable data store. GP is a monster and the law isn't doing anything, we gotta take matters into our own hands!

There's a lot of things this misses. It also completely misses the point on stuff like CP. I know CP is bad and I have no interest in seeing it. However, I do also know that there is a group of people out there that do want to see it . Is the "anti-censorship" approach to just "shine a light on it" and let those people watch CP that's on the immutable data store? This whole post doesn't just assume that people are by…

Right. If you can see it, you can catch it. If you push them further and further into obscurity, you're less likely to catch it. You're increasing the chances that it happens by censoring it, not reducing the chances.

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#88

Post by Daishiman »

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.

What makes you think they haven't?

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#89

Post by malermeister »

rglover wrote: post #87
malermeister wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of things this misses. It also completely misses the point on stuff like CP. I know CP is bad and I have no interest in seeing it. However, I do also know that there is a group of people out there that do want to see it . Is the "anti-censorship" approach to just "shine a light on it" and let those people watch CP that's on the immutable data store? This whole post doesn't just assume that people are by…

Right. If you can see it, you can catch it. If you push them further and further into obscurity, you're less likely to catch it. You're increasing the chances that it happens by censoring it, not reducing the chances.

It's not only you that can catch it. It's all other people too. Yes, you decrease your chance to shut down one individual perpetrator, but you also limit that one perpetrator's reach and they can't do as much harm.

It's the same thing as any other infectious disease, really. If you don't do any covid prevention and hang out with a bunch of unvaccinated people in close quarters, you're more likely to find out if somebody had covid, but at the cost of potentially infecting everyone.

This is about reducing harm by reducing infections.

Your argument boils down to "oh well, now there's CP forever accessible because its on this immutable data store, but at least we now know that somebody wanted to post CP".

Re: Web3? I have my DAOts

#90

Post by serverholic »

shagie wrote: post #69
Uehreka wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be clear, signing-in doesn’t trigger a transaction. So people can’t publicly see where you have logged in.

Also it’s up to you how you use the system. You could have a number of online persona’s each with it’s own login.

Post reply on HN