FWIW the idea of the Semantic Web pre-dates Web 2.0 by quite a bit, so even the idea of it being Web 3.0 was a bit of an attempt to bandwagon on the success of Web 2.0.
Does anyone know where I can see the latest developments on web 3.0 without most of the tulip mania? It takes so much effort to filter out blog articles and youtube videos on why <insert name> is going to be the next big thing when I just want to see the current state of things.
Bankless is almost exclusively just about ads to pump their own bags with little objectivity, though I guess they occasionally will have more knowledgeable guests who themselves might provide useful information. Either way, last place to go if you want to avoid the hype.
Noble goal, but I really don't understand what advantage you gain from selecting contributors with NFTs.
To be honest, I hope it fails. Developer communities are one of the very few places in crypto that aren't totally infested by Ponzi grifters and where you can find honest conversation, so I wasn't exactly thrilled when I saw this pop up. We don't need more wonky centrally-managed incentives. Incentives can be harmful. It most often reduces to a simple Ponzi.
I'm quite happy being a cynic in the field. Helps projects I work on stay measured. Not everyone in the web3/blockchain space is money oriented, some are interested in the technical stuff that's hard to find as easily in other fields.
Consider diving into tulip land (without any major investments of course). Mint an NFT, write a coin contract, it's actually a very fun and easy way to learn the basics of web3.
What a weirdly aggressive and unnecessary comment. Web3 has some pretty cool parts and there's definitely a new programming paradigm at work. Even out of curiosity, you should give it a try. Distributed computing is pretty interesting, and even more-so when there's a code complexity resource you need to optimize for (gas).
idk it's not untrue. So far my time investment in distributed ledgers hasn't done a damn thing for anybody, but it has been fun (in a 'playing with your food' way, as someone said downthread). I suspect many here have had a similar experience.
> Distributed computing is an entire field of study unrelated to blockchains.
I'm not sure if you're just being purposefully obtuse, but this is most definitely not true[1]. Consensus protocols (which are very salient in blockchains) have been studied in distributed computing since like the 70s; the EVM is basically a distributed Turing machine; etc.
What? Your comments support my point, they don't refute it. Blockchains are a (naive) application of distributed computing principles, not the foundation of them...
Don't think it's fair to call them a naive application of distributed computing principles if you look at the current research output in the area. Subset yes, but let's not underplay the genuine output on distributed and decentralized consensus and governance that's coming out of the area.
I'm deeply connected to the space. Blockchain folks have made some progress in the area of BFT specifically, but beyond that, no, it's mostly been naïve re-hashes of work already done in the 80s and 90s. This isn't necessarily bad, but it's absolutely not novel.
You claimed distributed computing was unrelated to blockchain. Now you're saying the relationship is one thing and not another, but you're admitting a relationship all the same.
Didn't think I would see a comment like this on Hacker News. Learning and experimenting is fun! When you are learning and having fun, there is no such thing as "wasting time".
Some would consider learning a old, outdated programming language a waste of time, but sometimes learning something new just to learn something new is just... Fun!
Twitter is very good for this, but you must follow the builders. Wholly agreed, there is too much trash if you just search for crypto. I'd recommend finding the founders and devs of a crypto organization or protocol you find interesting and follow along.
Some high signal ones are @Bantg from Yearn Finance, @gakonst from Paradigm, @epolynya for Modular Blockchain info, @iamDCinvestor for macro view and NFTs.
You can find a lot more good ones by seeing these individuals replies. And if you like, you can follow me as well @_nd_go, I try to keep my feed fairly high signal
The very first "high signal" account you mentioned has one of the latest tweets shilling something called Hegic which seems to be a risky options trading platform + coin built by a grifter.
Great thread, particularly the part on "land" in games. I've always found it a little off putting that so many cryptocurrency projects essentially advertise themselves by promising that early adopters will become landed gentry.
Also, I read the Transitional Gains Trap paper a few years ago and really liked it, but forgot the name and couldn't find it again, so you helped me find it again, thanks!
If you want a programmer/documentation approach then GitHub and developer forums are where you will get the best shill free discussion, read the eips/ercs on github and the eth cat herders forum.
The two coolest things about truffle, IMO, is the debugger, which lets you debug/step through past transactions, even ones on mainnet, and the --dry-run feature, which lets you run your deployment against a local copy of a real network, without syncing the whole blockchain.
Both those features lean heavily on the work I do on Ganache, an Ethereum simulator that has all sorts of nice development features that a public node doesn't.
1. we're starting to see the emergence of next-gen managed crypto cloud, so one can just start building on alchemy free tier for example, i can still use truffle in my dev env, but i can also just roll the functionality i need natively to the cloud
2. solidity packs a lot of fintech logic in a concise amount of code. an experimental auction dapp came in at like 150 lines. i'm not exactly building Compound here (yet)!
There isn't one - because they have been around, quietly, growing. Check sneakernet ideas, like Scuttlebutt ( https://scuttlebutt.nz/get-started/ ), p2p networks, like dat:// and ipfs://, retroshare, and so on.
Whatever you'll find under the web3 banner is, unfortunately, complete garbage.
Vitalik Buterin's blog often talks about developments in tokenomics and governance, including the game theory behind it and new projects that are implementing it.
Vitalik is one of the best people to follow in the space because he generally ignores a lot of the hype and focuses on way decentralization can change (and improve) the world. While there is a lot of value in defi, by its nature it attracts users and builders to the space for the wrong reasons (and in some ways taints the general perception of what blockchain tech is capable of)
If anyone is interested in the decentralized web without the ponzi-like elements (I say ponzi-like though I should reiterate again that I think defi has value), I'd recommend this talk by Vitalik, "Things that matter outside of defi": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsb7clrXMQ
I can really recommend Bankless podcast. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/ really great non spammy content. They have a lot of different people on from all walks of life and really do in-depth interviews.
While transfers have been "solved" in the cryptocurrency world (see Bitcoin et al), and likewise "computation" has been "solved" (see Ethereum et al), file storage is still not solved and seems to be a bit harder as it's taking time for the various solutions to mature enough to be useful for day to day usage.
No, if you think so I don't think you properly understand IPFS. IPFS suffers the same problem as HTTP, content disappears when people stop serving it. Yes, it's easier to make sure it's online as it's content-addressed, but content still disappears. Filecoin is supposed to solve that particular problem, but seems to have trouble maturing right now as it's not mainstream yet to use, or maybe it solves the wrong problem/solves the right problem with the wrong solution.
Why do you think that I am being snarky? I thought it was the very first question anyone would ask?! If you can't even do this basic thing that only devs would use (hence I assume it to be a much easier first target to get working as they are technical and can jump through hoops if necessary), then I imagine there's very few things you can make work, currently?
That said, it's nice to see there's some serious work going into this new stuff... driven by a non-profit foundation https://radicle.foundation/ , that does make me take it more seriously, I will check it out.
The answer is that decentralization is in many ways considered a spectrum. We're a long ways away from being able to interact with web3 with no centralized points. As an example, you're reliant on your ISP, DNS, and the web of trust (involving tiers of certificate authorities) to even connect to a web3-enabled site from your browser. The most popular wallet for interacting with smart contracts in the browser is source-available, but not open source.
Of course, any interactions with the blockchain directly (calling methods of deployed smart contracts, or transferring tokens), are decentralized, but if you want to verify the source code of the contract you're interacting with, the most convenient way again involves relying on a centralized service (etherscan or similar for other blockchains), while the decentralized way would involve downloading the contract source yourself, compiling it, and comparing that with what's on the blockchain.
Internet computer [1] went online recently. There are a bunch of apps already developed by the community on its version of smart contracts [2]. Some examples:
On HN, it only counts as a dupe if the story has had significant attention already (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). This one hadn't, so the repost is ok. The reason we allow this is to give good submissions multiple chances at getting attention. Otherwise it's far too random what gets traction off /newest.
> Therefore, a good diagnostic question to ask might be: would you still be curious about Web3 if those currencies were worthless, in dollar terms? For some people, the answer is “yes, absolutely”, because they find the foundational puzzles so compelling. For others, if they’re honest, the answer is “nnnot reallyyy”.
Can we add group #3, people who are profoundly uninterested in this version of Web3 even despite all the money in it?
I was a fan of decentralisation when it stood for federated software and the idea that the web should generally be the same for hobbyists and professionals.
I really can't see a desirable vision of the future with a web based on artificial scarcity, intentional resource waste and anarchocapitalism.
I wonder about this, because an awful lot of post-2008ish technology simply seems to be "like before, but different enough that we think we can be the first movers of the Next Big Thing, and therefore make a killing."
When you really get down to it, a lot of the popular technology isn't all that different from IRC, Usenet, etc., just app-ified and Web-ified (and emoji-ified, of course). I'm not sure moving to a "Web3" paradigm is going to be all that different, just with a new set of Very Important People driving it.
The problem with "traditional" federated networks is the lack of fungibility. The network effects around nodes is too great, which encourages centralization over time. Cryptocurrencies allow formalizing and automating the incentives involved in running decentralized networks, which can make them actually scalable.
I have no doubt the future successful decentralized networks will use or evolve from cryptocurrencies, but not being inspired by the current crypto landscape is completely understandable. The Ponzis drown everything out these days, they cloud the judgment of too many, making the public discourse around this field unpalatable. In percentage terms, almost nobody in crypto today care about what they're actually building or what for. It's all about raising money, or pushing a Ponzi in which they are invested.
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but what irks me most is that the whole crypto tech seems to be based on "proof of capital".
Doesn't matter if it's PoW, PoS, PoWhatever - fundamentally, crypto is about ensuring that there is a certain group of participants (miners) that can alter the shared state, while everyone who does not belong to this group cannot.
Furthermore, the group must become ever more entrenched over time because security relies on the fact that getting into this group is hard - so supposedly, those who are in the group have no interest in acting harmfully to the network. (Which is a big assumption by itself, btw)
I find it a bit weird that blockchain tech has pretty much captured the term "decentralisation" for itself, as it has some fundamental drive to centralisation built into its core.
Yes, it's decentralised in the sense that in theory everyone can become a miner. Except this is not true: If everyone could become a miner, so could adversaries and the append-only property would be gone.
This and the specific assumptions how a monetary system and an economy should work, which are also deeply baked into the tech.
You seem to think Proof of Work miners can do everything they want with the chain. Assuming the network isn't 51% attacked, that's not true.
When a miner finds a block, they can put transactions in it and submit it to the other miners, in order to acquire the transaction fees and the block reward for themselves.
These transactions are signed, miners can't impersonate participants. They are also incentivized to include actual transactions instead of their own thanks to the miner fee. If they try to censor a transaction, the next miner to find a block could include the transaction in the chain anyway, so they have little incentive to withhold transactions for non-economical reasons.
They can't rewrite the history, they can only push one block on top of it.
If I understand you correctly, the "centralization" you're talking about is the whole point of a consensus protocol: to get 'decentralized' participants to agree on a single 'centralized' state.
The promise here seems to be "blockchains and crypto and NFC will allow us to finally build a decentralized Internet!", and I keep thinking: we have one already. It is called "The Internet." If the Internet today has become too corporate and centralized, it's not due to the underlying technologies -- which implies that switching out the underlying technologies isn't likely to solve the problem.
Dixon is a good writer and a good advocate for this, but this explanation shares the issues that I consistently see in such defenses: it doesn't actually explain how the vision of "economic incentives…in the form of tokens" prevents centralization, because it seems to misunderstand what drives centralization in the first place.
Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc., are hugely centralized platforms because they successfully attracted hundreds of millions—in Facebook's case, billions—of users. Users are incentivized to be on those platforms because they like what those platforms offer. The internet has massive centralized platforms because users like those platforms.
A cryptonetwork-based challenger to Facebook isn't going to win by just adding tokens; any challenger, regardless of technology, needs to be a better Facebook than Facebook is, and it needs to be a lot better. But that's also the Catch-22 here: if our hypothetical "CryptoFacebook" finds a way to succeed economically, there's nothing intrinsic to the cryptonetwork that keeps CryptoFacebook from being a huge centralized platform. Big companies can use tokens, too!
In fact, I actually think the linked article casts some doubt on whether Dixon really understands "decentralization," as he compares Encarto to Wikipedia and sees Wikipedia as a decentralization success story. It's a "cathedral vs. bazaar" success story, to be sure, but Wikipedia is not a decentralized platform! It's a big monolithic system that one organization has massive control over. At the end of the day, the Wikimedia Foundation gets to set the rules for what happens at the wikipedia.org domain. If the community doesn't like it, they can try and fork it and create a replacement, sure. But that's a huge challenge—and it's also not really relevant to decentralization. It's more like LibreOffice supplanting OpenOffice as "premiere open source alternative to Microsoft Office"; the "center" moved from one project to the other.
So, TL;DR: I appreciate the link, and it's a good read. But it just doesn't make a convincing case that "build it on the blockchain" improves on what we have in material ways.
I'll do you one better: People who are disinterested in this web3 because of all the money in it.
What made the early web great was all the weird stuff people did for fun and self-expression and what made it worse was when lots and lots of money got involved.
I don't see how getting more monetization involved would make anything better.
Lame. Web3 used to mean the semantic web. That died. Even before that died social media marketers were already using the term Web3.0 to refer to some advertising nonsense.
Now it seems it is something vaguely related to blockchain. At the moment blockchain is directly tied to crypto currency, which to almost everybody looks like a giant Ponzi scheme.
Until the concept of blockchain is completely divorced from crypto currencies they can name this nonsence whatever they want. It won't stick. Nobody cares except for the few people already making money off this.
The builders will win and naysayers will be long forgotten. I work full time in this space and it is evolving faster than I can keep up with.
DAOs, NFTs, tokens, decentralized file storage, decentralized identity via public keys and smart contracts, tokens as authentication, on-chain reputation systems, oracles, fundraising with no third parties or gatekeepers, etc are all here to stay and will evolve further and faster than your bias will let you see.
If you have an alternative to the monopolistic web and mobile dystopia we find ourselves in, wherein we can only speak within the narrow band of corporately acceptable speech and expression, and we can only transact with the blessings of PayPal's overlords, that doesn't involve crypto or blockchain, I suggest you quit your job to build it.
Otherwise, I fear you might be too late at disrupting the establishment, as the builders are well under way, working on Web3 powered by crypto (in both senses of the word).
I advise/consult/build technology for a wide range of industries. (From AEC Firms to Major league sports teams) From my perch, the meaningful proliferation of blockchain in those industries has been...zero. And that's not to say it hasn't been on the tip of many of their CTO's tongues.
Your giant list of of terminology isn't making much of an impact on me. In fact many of those sounds terrible.
So giving your post the benefit of the doubt, when can I expect to be disrupted out of a job by even a single item on your list?
I think the most likely thing you'll see popping up is NFTs as tickets to sports games. That's one of the few NFT use-cases I really love and think makes sense.
The thing I love is the idea of atomic transactions. What does that mean? Well the transfer of a ticket for money could be a single transaction. No ticket without money, no money without ticket. Sure, you could use some tech to do this - maybe rely on Paypals guarantees to get your money or ticket back if the other person is fraudulent. But how do you guarantee the ticket is authentic? Well I can include a verification step in the transaction to only send my money if the ticket is valid with a smart contract. Now you have a peer-to-peer trustless safe method of trading tickets with strangers. The ticket providers can mint x tokens for a release and enable a safe resale market while users can feel safe buying and selling tickets online.
An NFT can store on-chain metadata. A simple boolean flag would let you mark it as resellable or not. In minting the tickets you can create a validator that checks authenticity but you can check these things yourself: that it originates from the organization for example. The metadata is immutable so if it's come from the organization it's authentic. Because NFTs are tokens are money you can transfer USDC for BackstreetBoysGig#Ticket1021 where O2ArenaTicketVerifier authenticates the ticket as part of the transaction only confirming it if the ticket is resellable and authentic.
How does a company know their tickets have been resold, if they don't want that to happen? Well you look at the tx history of the NFT - if it's been traded > 1 time it's been resold.
Compare these potential benefits with the existing ticket industry (including resale sites) and you see several benefits. You can remove intermediary companies meaning people pay less in fees and you can avoid ticket fraud. Is this an issue? Yes: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/feb/24/touts-who-made...
> In minting the tickets you can create a validator that checks authenticity but you can check these things yourself: that it originates from the organization for example
You, yourself, you: who is this "you". How do you verify that a particular resellable ticket actually comes from an org authorized to sell tickets? Who's to stop me from selling counterfeit tickets?
> where O2ArenaTicketVerifier authenticates the ticket as part of the transaction
So. In the end the org itself verifies it. You know that they can easily do it now, without the overhead of blockchain?
> How does a company know their tickets have been resold, if they don't want that to happen? Well you look at the tx history of the NFT - if it's been traded > 1 time it's been resold.
Because people will always put all their transactions for resold tickets on the blockchain, right
> Compare these potential benefits
You haven't listed "potential benefits" except maybe tracking reselling of tickets.
Sorry, I don't think you understand this technology at all. I appreciate one might want to remain sceptical of something that has so much FOMO and tulip behaviour but I feel you're being facetious. There's a well-known issue of third-party ticket sales and this method allows you to have digital proof that a ticket is authentic while allowing you to buy and sell with the guarantee if you send a valid money/ticket you will receive money/ticket.
> You, yourself, you: who is this "you". How do you verify that a particular resellable ticket actually comes from an org authorized to sell tickets? Who's to stop me from selling counterfeit tickets?
The organisation selling the tickets can create the verifier.
> So. In the end the org itself verifies it. You know that they can easily do it now, without the overhead of blockchain?
Yep absolutely! But it's very hard for someone who's buying the ticket from a third-party to verify the ticket.
> Because people will always put all their transactions for resold tickets on the blockchain, right
The NFT is the ticket. To transfer it is a transaction. If you were to resell the ticket offline and give someone your private key to access the ticket then fair enough but all you need to do here is have a hash of the buyers name as metadata and that resolves that.
Edit: If this isn't a problem, how would you buy a ticket from me to a gig with the information purely available to you about me right now? What would be the process? With a blockchain I could share a link to a transaction where you'd see a ticket is available for $10 USDC, you could put that ticket into the gigs site to verify it or look at the ticket origin and see it's from the organisers account, and send me the 10USDC immediately receiving a valid ticket into your wallet. If you're worried it's not allowed to be resold you can check the policy metadata embedded into the ticket saying "Resales are allowed".
> Sorry, I don't think you understand this technology at all. I appreciate one might want to remain sceptical of something that has so much FOMO
This is pure demagoguery.
> There's a well-known issue of third-party ticket sales and this method allows you to have digital proof that a ticket is authentic
You still haven't said how exactly we know the ticket is authentic: who verifies it's issued by the authorized org (not to mention resellers), who verifies it's authentic when the person shows up with it etc.
> The organisation selling the tickets can create the verifier.
The already do that, without blockchain.
For all the talk of "you don't understand technology" and "there are benefits", you come back to something that already exists and is already implemented: a central organization issues tickets and verifies them.
What exactly does blockchain bring into the picture?
> But it's very hard for someone who's buying the ticket from a third-party to verify the ticket.
How would they verify it form a "first party"? Who's to say who is "first party" and who's not? And that's before we get to the question of authorized resellers, people buying tickets for friends etc.
> If you're worried it's not allowed to be resold you can check the policy metadata embedded into the ticket saying "Resales are allowed".
Once again, there's some unknown "you" who somehow magically verifies some data.
The ticket is authenticated as yours by using the private key of the wallet that holds the ticket.
The company creating the tickets will say if it’s resellable etc, these are purely properties of an object.
Verifiers may well exist but how do you know someone hasn’t sold a ticket to two people? How do you know the ticket you receive is the one you see?
Also there may be some language context issues here. With NFT tickets I’m saying it’s possible to essentially use an API provided by an organization to verify a ticket. You can trust O2 Arena will know if a ticket to their own venue is authentic or not. They could provide an API that takes a ticket and returns a Boolean. A monetary transaction can be written that will only complete if the O2 Arena API confirms the ticket being traded is an authentic resellable ticket, otherwise it’d fail. That’s the thing here - we’re talking about programmable money and digital items can be seen as extensions of money with NFTs.
Another example - resellable digital games. You could have a game license that is resellable - any user account can play any game that they own the license for, and NFTs allow you to model this (it allows for trusted trading, it avoids double spend issues, with here cannot not be one instance of an NFT on a chain, etc…)
See, the problem with all you're describing (and the problem with any attempt to apply blockchains to anything) is that:
- it barely manages to cover the simplest of cases that already exist without any blockchain
- it makes a great many other cases needlessly complicated and complex
- for anything beyond the simplest cases (and often for the simplest case itself) it reverts back to approaches that already exist without a blockchain. And if those approaches don't exist, no idea why they would suddenly appear if you throw blockchain into the mix
So, back to your ticketing examples.
# The absolute simplest case: The organiser sells the ticket to a person.
1. Organisers generally don't care whether the person holding the ticket is the person who bought the ticket
You show up with a QR code, the QR code passes, you're through. That's it. For the rather rare cases where a person's authenticity needs to be verified, checking a person's id is more than sufficient.
In the case of blockchain, what is the exact process at the point of entry to the venue to both check that the ticket is valid and that the person is the one who bought it? The moment you say "yeah, the organiser will provide some external validator to check something", you lost: it can be done and is being done already, and you don't need blockchain for this.
2. To verify ticket authenticity the organiser or the ticket "it's possible to use an API", "O2 Arena could provide an API" etc.
"Possible", "could". They could do that already. Do they provide that API now? If not, why? And if not, why will they suddenly decide to provide the API when the tickets are on the blockchain?
So, blockchain brings literally nothing into this: to verify that a ticket is authentic you still have to rely on some third party external to the blockchain to provide some means of verification entirely external to the blockchain. Why do you need blockchain in this case? You can verify a QR code just as easily, and yet O2 Arena doesn't provide an API to do that, go figure.
3. They could provide an API that takes a ticket and returns a Boolean. A monetary transaction can be written that will only complete if the O2 Arena API confirms the ticket being traded is an authentic resellable ticket
So, a party external to the blockchain has to provide an API external to the blockchain that relies on non-standard object metadata recognisable only by that API external to the blockchain to ... write some transaction onto blockchain.
Why is blockchain needed at all in this case? To "make sure that if an object is marked as non-resellable we have a transaction log"? Well, maybe there's value in that, but it relies exclusively on non-existent APIs outside the blockchain that will maybe possibly perhaps appear.
And this "it's non-resellable, so no transactions can be written beyond the original one" preclude or make harder other very simple but very common cases:
# Other very simple but very common cases that are not taken into consideration because crypto-proponents have no idea how the real world works
- tickets are bought as gifts
- tickets are just given away because the person who bought them can't go
- tickets are bought in bulk for a group of people (so as gifts or given away)
- tickets are offered in bulk to orgs or bought in bulk by orgs to distribute between members of the org (corporate events, fan clubs etc.)
- tickets are re-sold by a chain of authorised resellers (chain being the key word here: a shop selling tickets in lower Manhattan could be on step 5 of the reseller ladder)
In the absolute vast majority of cases these cases are immediate and painless now. You buy a ticket and you hand it to another person.
In case of blockchain? Oh. "It's not resellable by the object metadata, so it will be invalid at the point of entry"? Or will you add more and ...
So, as luck would have it, today I had to fly from outside the Schengen zone into the Schengen zone with a layover.
So, passport checks, covid certificate checks, ticket checks. The ticket is non-resellable, non-refundable, non-transferrable to another person.
Guess how many of those steps required a blockchain. Also guess how many of those steps simply worked, and didn't need a blockchain.
Edit: Also worth noting: I bought the ticket through what is essentially a reseller (an aggregator site), and I could verify the ticket's authenticity with the organizer (the air company). Guess how many of these steps needed a blockchain to work.
Trust-less transfer, verification, & sales. The ability to provide additional value after the event. The ability to provide perks to recurring attendees. Means and reason to sell the ticket after the event.
> The ability to provide additional value after the event. The ability to provide perks to recurring attendees. Means and reason to sell the ticket after the event.
This... This can already be done and is already being done now, without any blockchains. There's literally nothing difficult in doing this.
As with most technological advances and innovations, people - even laggards of technological adoption - tend to over-estimate in the near term and under-estimate in the long term in terms of predicting the 'impact' of a given technology. So based on nothing at all other than witnessing corporations and industries rise and fall for more than 2 decades now because of new technologies, let's say 7 years before you're out. Fair?
I suspect these companies view upgrading core functionality tech as a cost center to be avoided at all costs and for as long as humanly possible. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I hear them bark from their bean-counting management perch.
So too were the companies that were content with their horse drawn delivery trucks to move their goods around town.
We now have a better, faster, cheaper (by orders of magnitude) way to move not goods but value through a network.
Obviously neither of us know how long it'll take for the legacy systems to completely die off, but they will. So I'll simplify the bet to: when, not if. Still game?
It'll come. As ethereum's scaling gets past the current growing pains and zkrollups like zkSync become prominent i expect enterprise interest will pick up, especially with initiatives like baseline protocol.
Companies can run their own private execution and data availability layer and have full control while not needing to worry about settlement.
> DAOs, NFTs, tokens, decentralized file storage, decentralized identity via public keys and smart contracts, tokens as authentication, on-chain reputation systems, oracles, fundraising with no third parties or gatekeepers, etc are all
99% scam. The remaining 1% is either more efficient and scalable in literally any other tech, or are busy re-inventing all the centralised institutions that come from, you know, the need to operate in reality.
> Otherwise, I fear you might be too late at disrupting the establishment
By saying "too late at disrupting the establishment" you're implying that the establishment is already disrupted. It's objectively not.
I agree with your sentiments on decentralization and the dystopian aspects of what our current web has become.
However I still have yet to be convinced of any real value or need of an NFT. For example let say I am the owner of a famous “Tweet”. This NFT shows exactly what … a unique token saying it’s mine ? A token with no legal recourse to stop others from using what I purchased? If you think about it from an opposing viewpoint in many ways you really own nothing except what people believe you own … which in this case is a small minority of people. A very small subset of people will currently even recognize what an NFT is and an even smaller subset will acknowledge and believe I own anything … reducing its value. Further the information and value of the “Tweet” (or digital art, or whatever) is not contained in the NFT at all.
Let’s say I buy the NFT to some cool digital artwork. Nothing is stopping anyone else from using this artwork… I have no legal recourse to say “heh I own this”. Only a small subset of people will recognize this as any form od ownership at all.
Sorry from my point of view NFT’s seem like a get rich quick fad… maybe am just a grumpy old dude at this point but honestly just don’t much real lasting value here.
I'm generally wary of anything that tries to make up a web version number. Since the internet is a decentralized system, attempting to stick a version number on it is inherently a dumb marketing exercise. Double so when describing something in the future -- maybe you can retroactively say some conventions have become so prevalent as to deserve to be called "web 2.0," but certainly nobody knows what conventions will become prevalent enough to be called 3.0.
I'm totally fine with people exploring and getting excited about uses for crypto and Ethereum, but I don't like the term "Web3"because it suggests that it's the next evolution of the web, when really it's a completely different technology. Hopefully this Web3 term is just a phase and will get replaced with something better.
On a side note, in Ben Thompson's Stratechery interview with the CEO of Unity this week, the Unity CEO used the term "Web 3" multiple times, but he was referring to a 3D/XR-enabled web rather than developments related to crypto. And I'm sure there will be many more takes to come on what the next version of the web will be.
I find it similar to the two currently in-vogue uses of the world "Metaverse" - you've got the crypto/web3 people using it to describe a world where NFT's are usable and recognised across software (ie. Armor you buy in Call of Duty is useable in Battlefield), and Facebook/Meta, trying to build a social VR environment not entirely unlike the vision of Ready Player One.
It's entirely probably they'll merge at some point if they haven't already.
This idea, "Armor you buy in Call of Duty is useable in Battlefield", to me illustrates so much that is frothy and unrealistic about this space.
Think about what it would actually take to implement such a thing:
- Call of Duty and Battlefield - rival games from rival companies - would need to agree to an integration at a VERY deep level
- They would have to share the same asset formats, such that an asset designed for one game could be used in another
- Issues of balance would have to be resolved: just sharing 3D models wouldn't be enough, they would need to agree on a system for modelling damage, armour piercing capabilities, visual effects...
- Then they would have to add blockchain integration deep enough that weapons a player obtains in the game are represented in a way that the other games can see.
- ... not to mention figure out some kind of exchange rate / add some kind of additional economy to their games, which would need to be shared across different games such that e.g. a pistol in Battlefield wasn't worth the same as a machine gun in Call of Duty
That's just off the top of my head.
And... they're supposed to be games! Game design is about balance - creating a set of rules that players enjoy.
Allowing some cryptocurrency-billionaire to jump into any game they like with the best possible guns and armour doesn't sound any fun at all.
Pretty much every idea I see coming out of this space has the same problem: it sounds plausible in a high-level hand-wavy, but collapses the moment you start to dig into the details of how it would work.
(My absolute favourite bad idea is still real estate on the blockchain, where presumably if I forget my password I can no longer sell my house)
Same as other supply chain blockchain efforts, a single (usually still decentralized) public ledger indicating ownership. Though not all are aimed at decentralization, more at creating a public ledger with some cryptographic methods used to ensure its validity.
Are there big issues with the current system that exists today to prove ownership of a property you bought? Is real estate fraud common enough?
I never went through buying property before so I honestly don't know, but most of the people I know just hired a lawyer and got it done and it was never a thing they had to think about afterward.
Not that I know of, just describing what I've seen others push it for. With supply chain, in general, it has some potential value (for auditing, in particular) but for large things like cars and homes we have (usually) government mediated records, and they're also usually public or semi-public (accessible with some effort, but not freely available on the public Internet).
Title insurance might be cheaper if your county clerk’s title register were cryptographically verifiable by outside parties? Though that just requires a Merkle tree, not a blockchain
There is potential use for storing the history of real estate ownership in a more robust way, as part of doing a title search as a prerequisite for a real estate transaction. But that won't get rid of the need for title insurance, which exists exactly to offset the issues and dispute around ownership and liens against real estate that put undo burden on real estate transactions. And it's probably folly to encode into law that a single "blockchain" of real estate transactions is final and authoritative without any kind of legal review, which is also why title insurance exists. It would make things more robust and perhaps faster to verify, but it doesn't get rid of the social (non-technical) issues around real estate ownership transfer, either historically or at the time of the transaction.
I've talked to someone who worked on a (non-NFT-based!) solution for this in developing countries -- it turns out that yes, the cost to bribe officials to falsify documents to steal property can be cheaper than the property's market price.
You don't need a realtor to buy or sell houses; realtors advise, advertise, and network, lubricating the process so that you don't need to guess at what a good asking price is, or whether you need to repaint the walls. Blockchain real-estate would not in any way obviate realtors.
I mean, I'm an indiedev and while I think that line of thinking, of re-using items between games, is pretty weak generally, I can see some use cases for it.
This already happens partly with asset stores like Unity's https://assetstore.unity.com/, where you can just buy assets to use in your games and multiple developers end up using the same assets. There's nothing preventing "popular NFT asset packs" from being a thing that, on top of helping devs make their games faster, would also end up helping indiedevs attract people to their games, since they'd be implementing certain NFT packs and users who own those would be more likely to check those games out.
Like I said, I think it's a pretty weak idea but it's not that crazy or ridiculous to imagine it happening to some degree.
What advantage would an NFT asset pack have over a regular asset pack? It is not uncommon for game assets to be many gigabytes in size, which is not a great fit for block chain.
There's a huge scale scale issue there though. When you buy an asset pack from the Unity store you bundle it with your game and it gets shipped with every copy (by whatever distribution means you use). Unity isn't involved in the last mile distribution. They don't need to care that I bought a copy of your game which contained assets from their store.
Further, assets aren't used the same way between games. Just because Game A and Game B use the same weapon asset pack doesn't mean it's fungible between games. Game A might use a damage scale from 0-1000 while Game B is rolling virtual dice with bell curve distributions. Game C uses a sword asset pack but shoots the swords out of a sword shooting bazooka strapped to a unicorn.
If I love Game C with its accurate unicorn physics, I don't care that it uses the same asset pack as Game B that's a D&D workalike.
There's virtually no utility for anyone storing the license of an asset pack on a blockchain. Unity doesn't care if I own a license to a game using an asset pack, they're not going to take on the cost of distributing it to me. Unicorn Bazooka doesn't want to give free advertising to the D&D workalike game by associating with it on a blockchain.
>There's virtually no utility for anyone storing the license of an asset pack on a blockchain.
A game engine built such that it can track games made with it that use a specific asset can have a percentage of the game's profits automatically go to the asset creator's wallet. So if you create some set of assets that are used by 500 different games, you're getting a very small percentage of each sale of each of the 500 games and you're being compensated for your work in a way that properly captures each game's success, rather than having each game pay you a flat fee. Wouldn't that be great?
I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.
So it's great that someone making assets can only make a good return if the maker of the game is successful? If an otherwise good asset(s) are used in 500 shitty games that don't sell any copies, the asset creator gets screwed. They have no influence on the quality of the end product, successful marketing, or even whether it's gets completed. That's just working for free unless you get lucky. If that model of pay took off then a lot of people making assets will get boned and a couple will win the lottery.
For a game maker it's not much better of a deal. They get a low/no cost asset during development in promise for a cut of future sales. Now they've got percentages coming off every sale in perpetuity. They can only sell their game at a price the market will bear. If that's a relatively low price all those percentages for assets chip away at their net.
I don't see that model being great for anyone. Outside of lottery winners most participants just get screwed.
> I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.
I might be lacking in imagination. It might also be the wisdom to see a lot of crypto-based ideas are just "solving" problems by introducing different problems.
Selling game assets on a blockchain and paying asset creators is only meaningful if people accept that blockchain's authority. If it falls out of favor/use/legality then it has zero usable value to anyone. I don't see any online stores accepting Beanz or Flooz and I know I've got some Geoffrey dollars somewhere that aren't worth much. I don't see why you think anyone will see any value in a particular blockchain around today.
And all of that hard stuff could be done entirely without blockchain, and would indeed not be made any easier by blockchain, because it's all just tricky gamedev work. Once you've got all that stuff done, you could just use an API or a normal database to transfer "digital assets" between games, and skip the blockchain stuff.
Oh, is making an interoperable API too hard? Well, it's not going to be any easier on the blockchain...
Exactly! This is my big critique about Web 3 — what can it actually do that we couldn't do already?
The new things people propose as Web 3 use cases, e.g. interoperable game items, simply aren't practical. That's why they don't exist already — not because they require blockchain to build.
I've heard people argue that big tech social media silos will be replaced by decentralized Web 3 social media, but why would they be? We already have decentralized social media. The reason Mastodon can't compete with Twitter isn't because it needs blockchain; it's because Twitter has all the users and all the money, and that's because centralization is just more profitable. It boils down to economics, not technology.
And we briefly had interoperable text chat with XMPP until the big players dropped support for it. The protocol already existed, it worked for a while, and then companies decided it wasn't in their interests to stick with it and the interoperable textaverse collapsed back into silos.
You’re overthinking it.
Nft is a proof of ownership.
So you import your Call of Duty armor in Battlefield and you get an equivalent ingame armor. There doesn’t need to be any agreement. The game just needs to know which nft is equivalent to the ingame item.
It’s kinda like McDonalds doing a promotion. If you bring a Burger King packaging you get a free Big Mac.
These promotions exist in the real world in one way or another.
Also, it is more likely that a few leaders will emerge in the NFT space offering a framework or platform as a service that is used by rival game development companies. You know, like when you boot up a game and see all of the logos for the frameworks they used.
Im not arguing that this is good. Just saying it is more likely to happen than not.
He posted a list of real, hard problems, all of which are correct. You posted an empty sales-pitch. The problem is not over-thinking.
Going with your analogy, think a bit more carefully: does that guy in the parking lot who sold you a Big Mac receipt have the power to compel Burger King to give you free food? That’s all the power an NFT has — there’s nothing magic about it, just a question about whether the business in question wants to do it. If they do, they don’t need a blockchain. If they don’t, a blockchain can’t make them.
No, it’s overthinking. The only thing that game developers need to solve is what item to give in return when a player imports something from another game. Could be you import armor and get a pink hat or a banana. It doesn’t need to be the same models, or same damage points or whatever. It can be anything.
Well yes, allowing to import an NFT is a business decision. Not sure what the point is?
That’s something different than the usual sales pitch of being able to use your items in another game, and it still makes no sense to involve an NFT. Why would EA give some of your money to a third-party now to potentially help one of their competitors in the future? If they want to setup a business deal, they’ll do it directly and avoid paying the middleman.
Dice / EA would want to maximize their profits through any legal, popular and mostly unpopular means. If that means entering some service agreement to support tokens from rival products then yes, they will. Anything that will increase particiation in their platforms is ideal.
Why wouldn’t they just make that deal together? That would give them more control, and they could split all of the money which would be going to blockchain fees instead of gifting it to third parties.
Sunk cost fallacy. If someone invested money into a game they might be reluctant to switch to a different game. But what if they can just take their investment with them and import it in another game. Then spend more in the new game.
Why would the other game want to make this information portable? Why would Minecraft want to let its players walk away to Roblox with all their trophies and hats (or whatever)?
They wouldn't, GP has the wrong idea of the sunk cost fallacy. The fallacy would be committed by the players, sticking with a game (and putting in more money over time) because they've already spent so much on it. Freeing them up to take their items elsewhere is the opposite of what game developers want (unless it's in other games by the same studio).
Same thing with other systems. Sony doesn't want their games to run on Xbox, and MS doesn't want theirs to run on Playstation. Why? Because then you wouldn't buy their consoles and they wouldn't get the money from licensing and cuts from their digital stores (you'd be free to choose, if your Xbox broke you could get a Playstation and keep going, breaking their revenue modeL). MS does want games to run on Windows along with their consoles because it keeps developers committing to MS's platform because it's sufficiently hard to migrate to the other consoles or OSes.
I was talking about the players.
Studios will have no choice but to support it because gamers will expect it. Just like Sony has been forced to accept cross-play in Fortnite. All it takes is one big game with NFT support to start it.
Why wouldn't the big players just stick all that information into one database and enable transferring assets back and forth that way? It solves the "wear my Fortnite hat in Minecraft" problem without making the entire database of who owns what world-readable. Like Zelle but for hats.
> Studios will have no choice but to support it because gamers will expect it.
Gamers can't stop pre-paying for games which launch with tons of bugs or paying for micro-transactions which incentivize abusive game design. I am highly skeptical that even 0.1% of buyers would not play a game they otherwise wanted because it didn't allow some way to recognize your items from another game.
You don't need an integration at all: you just call the other company smart contract to see if the user has a specific type of equipment defined by an NFT.
Problem is that this information should be private.
If I know you are a heavy user of some other game, maybe I can sell you something to advance in the game quickly instead of having to play a lot.
Is it desirable? For a game company, maybe. But for an insurance firm?
> You don't need an integration at all: you just call the other company smart contract to see if the user has a specific type of equipment defined by an NFT.
Does the code for cross-checking who holds what NFT on what platform just materialize out of whole cloth? Does Eth not have an SDK?
> and there is no need to have an agreed between both companies
Yeah, you would. The IP rights don't get thrown out just because there exists a pointer in a ledger that says you paid money to do widgety things with the content on someone's platform.
That solves some problems, but not all. Games in the same engine can have totally different mechanics. Imagine an item that doubles the speed at which your health regenerates. Well, what happens if you use it in a game that doesn't have automatic health regeneration? It could just ignore that value, or should it double the effects of health packs instead?
Also, plenty of games use totally different scales for things. +10 to damage might be a huge benefit in one game, but a tiny benefit in another. The NFT could publish a value like "here's what the max value of the stat is in the original game" so other games could make it proportional, but stats might not necessarily have a max value.
Basically it seems like the only reasonable way to do this is for game developers to cooperate in some way, and if cooperation between devs is needed, the value of using a blockchain instead of a database + API goes away.
> Allowing some cryptocurrency-billionaire to jump into any game they like with the best possible guns and armour doesn't sound any fun at all.
If the game just trusts any NFT in the right format to be an item, you wouldn't even need to be a crypto billionaire. Minting an NFT costs less than $100 worth of Ethereum according to a quick Google search. Lots of random gamers would pay that much to mint a set of armor that grants + a million percent to damage or whatever.
The only workaround I can see to people minting insanely overpowered NFT items is to only trust NFTs minted by a whitelist of trusted game developers, so you have to actually get the item in a trusted game. But, of course, that completely defeats the purpose of using blockchain. It might as well be a normal API with a database. In fact that would be much more efficient because of the very high costs of publishing data to a public blockchain.
I don't really think of that proposed use case the way you are presenting it there -- I think of it more as, there will be a massive public cache of items, available to buy and sell on a neutral marketplace like OpenSea, which only one user can hold at a time, that game developers can bring in-game if they so choose. The implementation details would be unique to each game, and driven by demand of the NFT holders, so maybe some would be better in one game than in another.
And I'm not some NFT zealot by the way. I just think the way you're presenting that use case is quite a strawman. You're saying the companies have to agree to a bunch of stuff, but they don't, and that's the whole potential imo -- each can pick and choose how and if they want to bring a given NFT in-game.
Walking through your points --
- Rival companies have to agree to integration at a deep level -- they both have to independently decide to support a given NFT type, yes, but they don't have to agree with each other about how it's integrated. For instance, one might allow you to don your armor purely for aesthetics, whereas the other might add some performance advantage for owning it.
- They have to share asset formats -- not true -- the original NFT might point to some image, but each game could simply verify token ownership, and have their own assets representing it. Loot, for instance, is just text on a background. There's a lot of room for creativity in interpreting how those text descriptions might be implemented.
- Issues of balance have to be shared -- not true -- because each game could balance and implement the item the way they choose. And again, the base case could be a pure aesthetic implementation.
- They have to add deep blockchain integration -- I don't follow your point there -- they certainly would have to call the chain to verify NFT ownership, but again, they don't have to agree how to represent the items.
- Exchange rate -- isn't that the point of a public market like OpenSea? The market is already there, bidding and offering every day.
- Billionaires paying to win -- who's to say some games wouldn't invert what you'd expect so that common NFTs can actually keep up alongside rares, or even have advantages over them? Maybe in pitting a mob of commons against the rares, for instance. Again, this introduces more possible choice for players -- if some company today breaks their game mechanics to favor pay to win, you don't have a way to move your existing investment in that game anywhere else. Whereas if frustration grows with some popular NFT game, a competitor could come along with better balance and eat their lunch.
Okay, but suppose there's an NFT of a cool hat that I want. It would cost $1000. Instead I mint an exact copy of the hat for $10. Obviously it could be distinguished from the "real" NFT hat, but all of its properties (its color, its statistics, whatever) are the same. So every game not only has to decide what to do with every NFT, but they also have to keep a whitelist of NFT issuers to try to maintain some semblance of scarcity, I guess?
Eventually you'll have a handful of big NFT companies whose entire purpose is to manage the hat economy, because if you throw the door open to any old NFT, you immediately tank the scarcity that keeps it running. But since we have to trust a handful of big NFT companies anyway, they can now just bring the data about who owns which hat in-house and provide an API to every game that wants to interoperate. RIP the blockchain.
Even if you ignore the integration part and just leave it as a marketplace to trade/sell items, as yourself and others have pointed out, don't need a decentralized, public, cryptographically verifiable database (aka crypto/blockchain) for such an implementation.
Steam Community Market[0] pretty much a long running example of such a system, but it is missing one thing, you can't 'cash out' beyond your Steam wallet to spend on other items that aren't games or other virtual items. I think this is a valuable feature as it prevents the massive speculation on virtual goods that would absolutely ruin the ability to collect/use virtual goods for an economically efficient price.
Without it, I 100% believe artificial scarcity would prevail in search for the maximum value extraction.
Around 2014 I looked, out of curiosity, into Ethereum and its EVM before Ethereum came out. Back then I even ran a node on... a Raspberry Pi (!). If I remember correctly even in 2014/2015, the official Ethereum client/node, written in Go, called "geth", was already using the term "web3" everywhere.
I'm not saying it's good or bad that people are using that term but all I'm saying is Ethereum using the term "web3" predates the "Metaverse" announcement by at least seven years IIRC.
It may be "en vogue" now but credit where it's due: Ethereum was using that term a long time ago already.
So as far as I'm concerned the name is perfect, in that it stands for hype and hazy thinkfluencing that is trying to puff itself up into looking like foundational change.
I predict that "web3" will follow the same trajectory as "ML/AI" -- keep stuffing more and more completely different models and techniques and technologies in under the same vague heading until one of them eventually starts to do something really useful and then credit that to the nebulous term itself.
It's a concise, unique label, making it convenient to add to block lists.
It is amazing how much more cogent and actually interesting tech twitter is when you remove all of the "Will this make me rich and important, and quick?" web3 noise. It's the most fetch thing out there right now.
On the flip side, at least it drowned out the "Miami is the new silicon valley" noise (though humorously almost the same set of people are behind both)
Random meta-observation from years of HN lurking: nobody ever likes the name of any new paradigm. And submissions that mention the name will be dominated by people complaining about the name, instead of the content.
That’s how I felt when Gavin/Parity people first started using the term, felt a bit like an appropriation. It’s a marketing term, people like new numbers like HTML5 or Industry 4.0. While it’s not perhaps so accurate for new decentralised storage/compute/consensus tech, it encapsulates the broader movement pretty well. I think we’re stuck with it for a while for better or worse - at least until web4!
> I don't like the term "Web3" because it suggests that it's the next evolution of the web, when really it's a completely different technology.
The confusion is the point, actually.
This is about hyping something that nobody wants except for people who want to use it to exploit the rest of us in some way and the pool of marks who think they're going a A) get rich off of it or B) reap some vague future benefit that you don't actually need a blockchain for.
Especially given that "Web 3.0" was already a term and (for better or worse) was mostly seen as synonymous with "Semantic Web". TBH, I never liked "Web 3.0" as a meaningless marketing buzzword then, but this is even worse because now we've overloaded a term which had a meaning with a confusingly similar term ("Web 3.0" vs "web3") which means something pretty much totally unrelated.
And yes, I know that terms in English get overloaded and that's part of life. Fine... but at least do it when there's a good reason for it. There's no particular reason to call this crypto/blockchain/ethereum/smart-contract/defi stuff "Web3". It could just as easily be "Web 4.0" or "Web 5.0" or "Fzbnnng^ztttzz@)@lyzmkizt" or whatever.
How do you ensure the ownership of the physical item is kept in line with the ownership of the NFT? Eg if the physical owner sold or gifted the item or it was stolen? It seems like the NFT is likely to have incorrect information over time.
I was being sarcastic; there is no legal basis for an NFT to be any different than, say, the URL in your browser. You can copy it all you want, but it doesn't convey ownership in any way.
This is not true. For example, ownership of an NFT (and burning it) can constitute payment for an intellectual property license to do something like put music into an advert or use it in a film.
My question remains, how do you ensure the physical item ownership is kept up to date with ownership of the NFT? Even if that is in the terms of service, someone could still steal an item, making the NFT ownership and physical item ownership out of sync.
The first generation of physical assets are vaulted: numbered gold bars, numbered collectibles, fine art.
The application is B2B trading of assets between dealers, so they don't have to mess around with devaulting every time the assets change ownership, introducing risk of fraud every time.
There is also a lot of insurance involved, to answer your probably next question: if the vault loses something or an employee accidentally drives a forklift over it, the NFT holder gets paid.
so 'hard' in fact, that ipfs/ethereum can't do it. Try for instance to discover the replication status of your data on the ipfs 'network'-- or to determine how you're partitioned relative to other actors. Ya can't do it. But hey as long as the cloudflare gateway works, right?
I understand that some things exist longer than their owners do. We already have mechanisms in place to manage the transition of ownership of those things. What is insufficient about those mechanisms? What is accomplished by these properties you say should be true?
I don't understand the point you're making. Amazon reduced transactional friction. In what way does ensuring metadata about transactions and securities outlive those things themselves relate?
I like the idea of Web3, but the problem is immediately apparent when I want to go play with some Web3 technologies: Everything requires money up front, and it's often a non-trivial amount. NFT based games are selling items for hundreds or thousands of dollars and I just want to screw around in the game for fun.
A big part of the problem here is that the high cost of crypto transactions and NFT minting means many Web3 things literally can't afford to let people get started for free.
The solution is layer 2 protocols like Loopring and Polygon that will sit on top of the Ethereum stack and offer much faster/cheaper ways to interact with the Blockchain.
For additional clarity, Polygon is its own blockchain. Loopring is, to my understanding, specialized for trading, and perhaps expensive to get started with.
And there are also other blockchains for which transactions indeed cost pennies, and which are faster than Ethereum. I love Ethereum for what it's provided to the ecosystem, but at the same time, I've never used it.
Whether it's new, high-performance chains like Solana or Avalanche, or better Ethereum scaling, things will definitely get cheaper eventually. You can also buy tons of NFTs for cheap thanks to the gold rush, not that you'd want to.
That’s weird, was this article edited after being on the HN front page a few days ago? I distinctly remember the article mentioning social networks being built in SF in South Park, but now that section says “ I have vivid memories of the ferment of the late 2000s, a new social network flaring up every week! I lived in San Francisco; they were building them in offices around a narrow, scraggly park” which strikes me as odd phrasing.
Ownership over rent, sharing info without replying/participating in social diarrhea, local storage first, no regional restrictions (hi, Google fucks), small and slow before big and instant (shove your Prime up yours), less is more and all that shit.
I've realized I'm not overcoming thousands or millions of years of evolution in a lifetime, so no need to stress over the "progress" people made in recent years.
Keep your modern hyperconnectedness, it works great as a buttplug.
We need to get specific. There is no web3. People aren't going to just take everything from the crypto ecosystem and instead we need to talk about what is good and what is terrible.
Crypto currencies are terrible - or at least I have heard of no reason why people need them outside of ponzi scheming, ransomwaring, or your drug deal - especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green.
That said, things like distributed file storage (IPFS) and distributed identity are really interesting. We really do need solutions around how we prevent China, Russia, and other governments from basically brainwashing folks through turning off any part of the internet they don't like. I'm all-in on that part.
Okay, what advantages does being a coin give it over a Stripe button? At some point you need to buy real hardware so anything useful involves at least a couple of blockchain transaction fees on top of whatever the actual cost is.
Blockchains are easily censored. It sounds like you want cash.
Things to think about: how does this prevent embargos? If you’re in the US, any means of doing business with someone on the watchlist is a legal hazard. If you’re in a country which doesn’t follow that, you have other options. Changing the tech doesn’t change the law.
As for alleged censor-resistance, consider what happens when major exchanges are required to follow the laws. Coins become tainted once they’ve been used for illegal transactions, reducing both the number of potential buyers dramatically and how much they’re willing to pay. Miners in countries party to international agreements may even refuse to process them. The fact that the first transaction couldn’t be blocked doesn’t mean everyone’s just giving up.
Here's one example. This guy was arrested for laundering money using Bitcoin. He was arrested for his transactions on the Bitcoin network. If you consider payments as the sort of thing that can be censored, then this certainly counts as censorship.
That's exactly my point, though. What happens on-chain doesn't really matter when you can circumvent it in real life. If I start sending people to jail for using blockchain, nobody's going to want your bitcoin, no matter how irreversible the transactions are.
He was punished but not censored. In many cases the distinction matters.
The US can't prevent Wikileaks from receiving Bitcoin donations, for instance. They can punish one of their citizen who sent Wikileaks money, but not take the money back.
You're trying to be pedantic about a line which doesn't exist. No form of censorship has ever been perfect at preventing all activity — the likelihood of punishment is what makes it effective. Newspapers won't cover a story which they expect to be punished for, people will say things in private rather than in the street, etc. all despite technically having the option to shout something on the street. It turns out that being able to say “this is punishment, not censorship!” afterwards while the police are getting out the electrodes isn't very appealing to most people.
In this case, you need to think more carefully about the various ways in which activity can be deterred or prevented:
1. Blockchains give a permanent, public record. That has a chilling effect on anything potentially censorable because while the government might need a witness to know that you dropped $50 in the Wikileaks jar, they can at their leisure tell that you did so with cryptocurrency.
2. “But it's [pseudo-]anonymous!” — if any part of your transaction network becomes known to them, they can link that wallet to you. Better hope that you, your friends, and every business you interact with have perfect opsec and all of your software is flawless about masking its network traffic.
3. Most people use exchanges and buy from businesses which have a legal presence in a country which is part of international agreements. That means that when, say, the US puts someone on a sanctions list transactions might be blocked outright for people using a bank which checks the blacklist and refuses to take on liability for prohibited activity, but if successful those coins have less value because fewer people are going to buy them in return and they'll pay less. You can probably get Bitcoin to Wikileaks, for example, but that Wikileaks wallet holder is going to have a hard time turning it into useful currency which will be accepted by legitimate businesses in most of the world. Paying to launder it is possible but unreliable and you'll be running afoul of the same infrastructure used to track organized crime, and presumably paying similar rates to do so.
sure they can take the money back. they just make wikileaks pay them, or else they press charges against wikileaks for holding onto the proceeds of crime or whatever.
even if you're insisting that censorship has to be preemptive, then the chilling effect from these arrests still counts.
"What about the rubber hose" is an entirely valid security concern in some contexts and is part of why the principle of least privilege is important.
Whether you think it's fair to call this "censorship" or not, the fact remains that the state can control how its citizens use the blockchain, because it can control its citizens.
I put “hack” in quotes because at the time the community loudly was proclaiming “code is law” and if you accept that the person accused of hacking didn’t break any “laws” of the DAO…he simply used it according to the code published in the smart contract. The community decided to hard fork, change the rules and censor his transaction.
You could make the same argument that was censorship in bitcoin had a transaction been made that exploited the inflation bug before the fix was pushed out: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/
Good point. Those instances weren't "easy" though, they needed the support of the whole community, and in Ethereum's case the "uncensored" version still exists (Ethereum Classic).
It also likely would not be possible today, see the Parity hack in 2017, which lost people close to the Ethereum foundation a 9 figures amount, but didn't get forked away even though they tried.
How do you think that works? The content is tracked by hash — as soon as something is identified, the network helps the authorities find everyone sharing it.
The most valuable part of Bitcoin is being able to carry a fortune unafraid of theft either from a petty criminal or an employee of the government. Like weapons a very powerful technology that escaped Pandora’s box.
I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting that millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin has not been lost to theft or seized by the government since its inception?
Traditionally, theft occurs with a sharp object at your neck. I don't think bitcoin protects against that. Not to mention that more mundane theft/government seizure/etc has already happened.
While there are no absolutes (but this one) there are no other way to, by remembering 12 words, carry millions with you. My point is simply that this application makes it valuable - regardless of any value judgement one may wish to make
Why on Earth would politicians sign on to that? China, for instance, would just go "Ok we're blocking web4 entirely then. Communicate with us over censorable protocols or not at all."
Technology shapes policy, but policy is always the one calling the shots.
That would be cool; but it would go against not just China and Russia, but against any government. Can't turn off Isis beheadings, pedophiles, scammers, bullies, copyright infringers, ideological intolerables (who can be homophobes in some countries and homosexuals in others), and the list goes on and on. Judging by the prevailing sentiment of modern societies, they wouldn't like this. And governments most certainly won't.
> especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green
If you take the bad parts of every cryptocurrency and made them into one single bad cryptocurrency, then yes, you would be correct, but all of these things are better in certain cryptocurrencies than traditional financial systems.
Cryptocurrency doesn't mean only Bitcoin or Ethereum.
> especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green
citation needed
As a whole I agree with your statement objectively, but this cannot be said for each blockchain uniformly.
We also don’t need the internet to communicate, gift cards are used to pay scammers, there are other much larger consumers of oil like cars and planes. It’s disingenuous to dismiss this technology for these reasons, there are definite upsides worth exploring that you have alluded to.
Most people don't enjoy having to jump through a dozen hoops to send 5-8 digits of fiat between countries with a massive delay, possibility of "your" funds being held for almost any duration due to any number of reasons, or just frozen because some automated system quite possibly false positive flagged you. It is far more important to me that a value store is actually under my control, and usable instantly 24/7 instead of only during business hours or having to wait for the next business day.
A good part of financial "regulation" is not for consumer protection - it's not for consumers at all, it is for governments. The US government is free to regulate the dollar, because it is a currency they issue. Given their track record of mismanaging fundamental economics, I have no interest in a value store issued by a notoriously incompetent entity that is also inconvenient, volatile, unreliable, being actively hyper-inflated, and not even under my control to begin with.
This whole "you dont need crypto unless you are ponzi, ransom or drugs" shill is getting really old. We all know how "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" plays out logically and ethically. I haven't held onto USD for more than a day after getting paid in over three years now, other than what is absolutely necessary for transactions that still rely on USD. I'm a software engineer with no criminal record/affiliations, and strong morals as well as ethics - which is why I still pay all the taxes I should in USD, and circumvent the otherwise technologically inferior and fundamentally unethical method of value exchange for everything else. So please, give me a single reason to use a dinosaur bank over crypto that is actually in my own best interest.
Preventing money laundering, drug trading, etc etc is part of what our taxes pay for - a safe and secure society for us and our kids. To your point, do you think that's being done competently in tradfi, given every massive money laundering scandal in the last 50 years which involved established traditional banks? It's already not being done. RE: "running to mexico with the money". I believe any individual should be able to take the "payout" for the value they provided to society and freely move with it / utilize it in whatever country or society they choose. Most governments disagree, and that's cool - but how is that in any of their citizen's best interests? Venezuela was a great example of how that plays out. The people there lost everything due to their government's incompetency.
At the end of the day, things like drug and human trafficking don't happen because the people behind them are able to launder money - they happen because of a complete and utter failure on the behalf of our government. All of these issues were here long before crypto, and while yes, CC definitely does not help these issues go away - quite the opposite, actually, and that part is unfortunate ...but it's not the root cause of the problem. And the half-assed solution currently in place is so inadequate that even otherwise sane individuals resort to scapegoating things like crypto. Is the current precedent of "lots of drugs are coming out of [XYZ] country, let's destroy everyone's lives in it unilaterally with sanctions in an attempt to hinder those responsible" really something you are okay with?
For example: the US goes to war with a country I have family in, and now I can't support my loved ones. I could not care less about the economic policy, because enabling my grandparents as well as great grandparents to buy food and basic life necessities is far more important to me. In some parts of the world, even Western Union and those services restrict this - or charge exorbitant fees which make CC transaction fees look tame in comparison. Choosing a geographic location and unilaterally destroying the standard of living there through economic sanctions might as well be mass genocide.
I keep hearing this (healthy) skepticism, but it does lose sight of what is happening in many countries. For a lot of folks (me included) Web3 is about using decentralized blockchains in a web context to reduce problems that arise with control from centralized systems. It makes sense for specific use cases, so let me give you 2.
1) Finance (DeFi). Even for valid (non-criminal) uses cases, there are numerous laws and regulations that translate into crazy fees to do proper crossboder money transfer. I transfer money every month from the US to different countries in LATAM to pay employees, and historically you get screwed with various fees depending on how you structure the transfer (e.g. to the employee directly vs. to an entity in the receiving country that disburses the money to different local employees).
During the past few years I have encountered everything:
- unexpected fees beyond the local transfer fee at the receiving end (that change some times) (hello folks at Interbank!)
- low-fee provider that canceled our account because the TOS said that the service was meant to be used to send money to family and not to employees (hello folks at Xoom!)
- holding of money transferred for a week because of some threshold passed that triggered some AML check (hello folks at BCP!)
- provider that canceled transfer to a particular country for political instability (hello folks at Transferwise!)
- etc etc
All that goes away when you use p2p networks (like the ones from Binance https://p2p.binance.com/en?fiat=CNY&payment=ALL) and stablecoins to transfer money. The fees are low (or sometimes non-existent) and the transfer happens in seconds (vs the hours/days in a traditional system). Literally millions of cross-border dollars get transferred this way every day. Additionally, I hear of other folks who have escaped authoritarian regimes but still have family in those countries where there are strict restrictions to send/receive money. Guess what they are using?
2) Digital Property/Rights:
Whether you want to accept it or not, there is an entire market where all kinds of property is being transferred through smart contracts. Sometimes the traditional digital item (say an NFT) has an associated real-world contract attached to it that extends some sort of right/ownership of a physical item in the real world. The rights to these items is being transferred from person to person every day. That market keeps growing, and it is not just "exchanging jpegs" anymore.
For both of these use cases, there are real world scenarios where a central authority has been by-passed for a legitimate transaction. And it happens every day today. The use cases for web3 is not running a "distributed Wordpress instance", but other useful real-world use-cases like these that we are starting to discover.
> Sometimes the traditional digital item (say an NFT) has an associated real-world contract attached to it that extends some sort of right/ownership of a physical item in the real world.
Does it? Do you have any examples of this? How does the ownership get enforced?
This seems to address the most salient criticism of NFTs which is that the only thing which changes ownership is the NFT itself, but I have never seen it in practice.
They don't even need to be NFTs per se. The idea of blockchain-backed ownership is starting to jump everywhere. There are already a few companies like this: https://fraction.co/
2) The example of fraction is not just a "selling platform", but an actual real problem being solved (fractional ownership of real-world items). In LATAM for example, there are exceptionally convoluted structures to partially build and own low-income centers of commerce (kind of like malls). Fake ownership documents are very common. This solves that problem squarely. There are more real-world use cases like this.
Do you know of any good resources for tracking what real-world usage there is for smart contacts? Preferably something that details actual usage statistics rather than a list of companies that purport to do something with them.
> Even for valid (non-criminal) uses cases, there are numerous laws and regulations that translate into crazy fees to do proper crossboder money transfer.
DeFi would have to follow those laws, right, and would be just as much of a pain to use after it has all of that compliance built in?
Otherwise, what you're doing is just illegal, and the alternative you should be comparing crypto to is something like "hiding money in carseat cushions", not TransferWise, right?
If you are talking cross-border money transfer, in countries like the US you cannot just willy-nilly have an exchange that changes fiat for crypto and vice-versa. In order to sign up for Kraken/Coinbase/etc you have to pass through KYC / AML on-boarding and are under continuos AML monitoring of the size and structure of your transactions. In the original example, the US company buys crypto from an exchange in the US using fiat from a US Bank Account and will transfer that to another exchange off country (in my example it would be a LATAM country). There is a trail of the entire process on the sender (US side). However, it is true that the responsibility and thoroughness of the AML on the other side depends largely on the receiving country(the KYC/AML program requirements of the exchanges in the other side will vary great). Legally and conceptually, it is just like it would happen with transfering Fiat in the traditional way (e.g. once I send you money to your bank in LATAM you can take it out and do whatever you want with it - legit or shady), except with all the fee/speed/etc benefits. The main conceptual difference is how you create liquidity (changing from crypto to fiat) on the other end (i.e. through p2p or through the exchange). Of course the gray area is what happens on the other end, but as a sender you have gone through all the checks and requirements. You even get paperwork at the end of the year and the US exchange will submit suspicious activity reports (if necessary) to the US govt just like a regular bank would do. Totally legal and correct.
> Digital Property/Rights: Whether you want to accept it or not, there is an entire market where all kinds of property is being transferred through smart contracts.
Are any of those smart contracts for physical items recognized by, you know, actual laws, courts, governments, etc.?
> Sometimes the traditional digital item (say an NFT) has an associated real-world contract attached to it that
That is the only thing required for an actual contract for an actual physical object, and NFT is just some scam attached to it.
> Ethereum should inspire anyone interested in the future(s) of the internet, because it demonstrates, powerfully, that new protocols are still possible.
Yes it should. Hence the reasons why there are alternative blockchains that not only aim to supersede Ethereum but they are specifically designed to scale and handle more applications and use-cases with cheaper transaction fees and are also EVM compatible.
The only reason that they have decided on something unscalable and expensive as Ethereum is because they missed out on Bitcoin. So the Web3 crowd decides to hype it everywhere.
I still cannot use Ethereum to buy my groceries. Therefore it is completely useless for that case.
So the crypto-hype train is now claiming it's the new web. The article is wishy-washy language that leaves you excited and unclear. I wonder how much of a dollar boost this will give crypto currencies before the next thing shifts attention and garners excitement.
"If we could do it, we could build a completely decentralized version of our current internet," Hendricks says. "With no firewalls, no tolls, no government regulation, no spying. Information would be totally free in every sense of the word."
There may be no single thing that is "web3" but there is something I will fight hard for that I think justifies the term: ways to use the internet for the movement and coordination of information and value that nobody can control or censor and anyone can participate in.
That's it. That's all that needs to happen to keep me on side. The more our online lives and worlds fulfil the above statement, the better.
However, the internet is infrastructure and right now both governments and service providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google effectively force moderation on communities becasue they increasingly control the infrastructure and methods of access that communitites need to use that infrastructure. The goal of "web3" or decentralisation in general should be to remove those layers and give communities complete freedom and control over how and if they moderate content.
What isn't? Every single stepping stone on that path uses someone else's infrastructure, who are able and willing to shut you down for any or no reason.
To activate your free speech rights, first buy a computer and build your own datacenter. Next, start your own ISP. Finally, tell others about your site, without piggybacking on any existing sites. In this way, all citizens can express their views without fear of censorship… and without fear of anyone ever noticing.https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
It doesn't even stop at the ISP, unless you intend to span the globe with your own cables. Otherwise you're buying transit from private corporations and subject to their whims. It's pretty much build your own internet if you want true freedom of speech on the internet.
Complete freedom in this sense is not an abstract good. Society is made worse if it allows a community of misogynists to exist and self-govern. Autonomy can only be ethical with limits.
Who determines the limits? What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you? It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
The limits are determined by society, usually through the vehicle of government.
> What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you?
Then I petition society to bend the collective opinion towards my own, or I change my opinion to be more in line with society.
> It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
The whole point of societies, in the most general sense, is to improve the lives of it's members, in aggregate, over time. Or, as the Buddhists say, to reduce suffering. Systematic exclusion of antisocial and/or deleterious actors is an explicit design goal of functioning societies. To accomplish this goal societies must first acknowledge that the essential nature of their task is subjective, and requires moral judgment. This can produce bad outcomes, sure. But that possibility doesn't invalidate the approach. Laws can also be used to oppress, but we don't throw our hands up and say justice is impossible.
> It’s possible you have, in recent months, seen people writing with excitement (or curiosity, or consternation) about “Web3”. The term imagines the transition of many internet services to a model built around cryptographic tokens, such that ownership and/or control of those services might be divided between their token-holders, a group that might include their users. The tokens would also have exchange value, so, as a user, you could always: cash out.
Except in 99% of cases there is no technical reason for those tokens to exist. Everything they claim to do can be done with Bitcoin by itself.
Look, there's nothing wrong with harvesting money from digital rubes. But let's not fool ourselves into believing what's going on has anything to do with turning the world into a digital Chuck E Cheese.
I mostly agree with one caveat. The bitcoin signature "dumb contract" is intentionally a form of automata just shy of Turing completeness. Therefore there's no way to hack in any arbitrary feature (like NFTs) without having a fork. Granted NFTs don't do anything computationally complex, so all it would take is modifying bitcoins stack machine with a single additional op code for minting Chuck E Cheese tokens (I propose 0xCEC). Now we just need to get all the miners to agree to a hard fork adding this one mundane feature that honestly shouldn't upset anyone and you can just ignore if you don't like it. In other words, it will never happen.
As for NFTs they are little more than OP_RETURN, which has been part of Bitcoin since 2014.
There's this persistent and incredibly ignorant view out there that Ethereum's contracts are "smart" and Bitcoin, well, it doesn't do smart contracts. Even a cursory glance at the link shows this is not true.
Proof is in the pudding. There's this persistent effort to list the technicality that BTC can do "something" in terms of smart contracts, but the disparity in the real world usage of smart contracts between ETH, ETH compatible VMs and BTC would imply something is missing. Does not the Taproot update aim to solve this non trivial disparity in capabilities?
>incredibly ignorant
I don't think it's ignorant at all. Over-emphasizing BTC smart contracts in my opinion is pedantic. Where is BTC Defi? That is a multi hundred billion-$ industry in terms of value locked in contracts. If BTC doesn't have the equivalent, then its "smart contract" capabilities are not equivalent. Simple as that.
> Look, there's nothing wrong with harvesting money from digital rubes.
Yes there is. I won't go so far as to say it's stealing, but for smart people who could be using their talents to build something actually valuable it's at least a misallocation of resources.
>Everything they claim to do can be done with Bitcoin by itself.
Can you hold stable coins on BTC? How about lending them for yield? Depositing into pools/vaults that aggregate yield, harvest farmed coins, and other strategies?
How about taking the LP tokens from above, and borrowing against them to increase capital efficiency, even in some cases achieving self-paying loans from the yield derived from the LP tokens [0]?
To say BTC can "do all of this" is absurd. Where is it? Who cares if the "can do" is theoretical at best. In practice, the amount of things you can do with ETH and similar dwarf what is available with BTC. BTC is a great finite store of value. But why pretend it does things it doesn't actually do? Why over-state it's capabilities in comparison to other cryptocurrencies?
I don't usually think about this but one of the points did hit some nerve - I cannot begin to understand what it's like for a 20 year old to have been born in a world where Google is already established, Social networks are mainstream, and Amazon is our all encompassing commerce overlords.
To me it was just yesterday that the idea of that curated list of web links called Yahoo seemed neat, ebay is some social experiment from across the bay, and then this ugly looking Google kid comes in and blows everyone away with actual relevant search results. Or those SMS messages from that SMS service Twitter or finding old friends on friendster... I can't recall any recent high impact "new thing" except maybe crypto.
> I can't recall any recent high impact "new thing" except maybe crypto.
Uber is literally life-changing. Remember needing to call people and ask them for a ride when something unexpected happened?
> I cannot begin to understand what it's like for a 20 year old to have been born in a world where Google is already established, Social networks are mainstream, and Amazon is our all encompassing commerce overlords.
20-year-olds have had life-changing technology adopted around them multiple times. It's just not on your radar because you weren't 10 years old in 2011.
Roblox, Minecraft, and Fortnite are examples. As people are saying: the metaverse already exists to some extent, and young people have been living in it daily since they were small children.
I might be only 26 years old, but even I have memories of my parents easily flagging down taxis in Manhattan. More convenient? Absolutely. "Literally life changing" seems a bit much, though.
Maybe not in Manhattan, one of the central points of one of the biggest cities of the world.
Where I live, the only form of non-personal (your own car or bike) transport was the bus, which comes by 5 times a day, only once on saturdays, and never on sundays. Uber and its local equivalents have allowed me to participate in social events that the long and restrictive bus rides would not allow, and which taxis would be too much of a luxury.
I think that for me it is fair to say it was life-changing. Maybe not as life-changing as other things, but if it wasn't for this kind of service, I wouldn't have some of my best friends.
Manhattan is the worst example to compare to. You can now, in literally any suburb, get a ride on demand in 10 minutes or less. I used to have to book a taxi or figure out how to chain multiple buses to get to where I wanted if I was going across town in a suburb.
alright, then in the suburb of new york i lived in (which was, mind you, in the middle of a forest), i could call up the local taxi company and get a cab to me in like... 30 minutes or so. really the only convenience is that it saves me a phone call and from carrying cash.
It also depends on the suburb you were in in New York. If you were in "some" neighborhoods, the taxies would never come.
In New Orleans, when you wanted to get a ride home from a bar, you'd need to try calling taxi services for 30+ minutes, because most of them didn't answer, or their lines were busy. If you got in contact with one, you'd need to wait 30+ minutes for them to show up, if they ever did.
In San Francisco, when the bars would let out, none of the services answered their phones. You'd have to stand outside and try to flag one down, and most of the time they'd roll their window down and ask where you're going, and decide whether or not they want to take you. You could easily spend an hour outside waiting for a taxi.
I do this frequently. When I go back to New Orleans to visit family, I use Uber/Lyft in the suburbs to get around, even including the remote suburbs. They don't come within minutes, like if you were in a city, but I'm able to reliably use it.
To me Uber is not my dad picking me up. It's a taxi i called up. I used to call a cab by phone, and now I call it with an app. Not a huge difference. I don't care who drives it as lon g as it gets me there. Having a situation where anyone is a "TV" star, and anyone is a "celebrity" with "followers" and everything is "documented" and "filmed" is a major shift.
> I used to call a cab by phone, and now I call it with an app. Not a huge difference.
And maybe you have lived places where this wouldn't mean anything to you, but you couldn't do this in most of the US before Uber.
Even in some well-known cities, your chances of getting a cab in < 30 min (if you could get one at all) were close to zero. There wasn't a single number to call -- you had to call many numbers and hope someone actually showed up. You couldn't track progress.
Where I grew up, my parents couldn't even get to the airport without asking a relative (and this is the biggest city in our home state).
A functioning, 24/7, predictable taxi system was absolutely not available in most of the US before Uber.
> A functioning, 24/7, predictable taxi system was absolutely not available in most of the US before Uber.
I find this quite surprising. I've lived in 3 countries (including the US but limited to San Francisco) and calling a cab was always a reliable thing. I know my scope of experience is still limited, but Uber being the silver bullet of taxies seems to me like an overstatement. They are great, I like them, but to me they are just a better version of something else, most times. At least that statement explains more their level of success.
The key word is deconsolidation - something almost every user actually wants for many reasons more or less. This feels to me like the cycle of the forum moderator problem - the site is great and useful but then gets popular and the more popular and generalized it all gets the more likely people will want to split off.
I think the underlying direction is the right way, I just really dislike how it moves more towards more capital and commerce focused than social good.
I am literally 22 years old like the article says.
I can still remember pretty well my life before I was always connected. My earlier life was quieter, calmer. I have fun memories of my old Nokia 5800 :)
I am not sure I live modern technology that much different than older people. Just like many people grew up with home appliances or cars being the norm.
I keep thinking about the beauty of the BitTorrent protocol and wonder why there is no longer any excitement about it and no one is building anything on top of it. Isn't it already a inter planetary file system?
Not sure what that has to do with BitTorrent. But anyways, are we gonna judge people based on what they use their hard drives for? How do you feel about people filling their drives with just porn or worse, just movies and video games?
It has nothing to do with Bittorrent, other than having been created by Bram Cohen.
I'm not talking about filling it up with useless or silly content though, running a Chia node will cause a hard drive to fail after a very short time. This isn't due to any legitimate usage for storing content, it results from how they implement proof of space. It's been a while since I read about this in-depth, but basically it amounts to having the nodes fill the drive with junk data and then prove they're participating by regurgitating some section of that data on request. Then on successive blocks, it gets rewritten with new data.
The irony is, I believe this was intended to address the environmental concerns of proof of work mining, and perhaps it does. But turning hard drives which require resources to create, into landfill, isn't really environmentally friendly either.
edit: To clarify, I'm not judging people using or participating in the Chia network (many participants apparently didn't even know it would destroy their hard drives). I am judging Chia's consensus mechanism for being wasteful however.
You're rehashing mainstream news articles that gloss over crucial details.
"Plotting" is the act of filling the hard drive with the random data. It only needs to be done once, after which the data can be used to "farm" indefinitely.
Farming is very low on energy requirements and doesn't damage the drives.
Plotting can be accelerated by doing it on a fast SSD, and transferring the plot data on large capacity HDDs for farming. This saves time at the cost of writing a lot of data on the dedicated plotting SSD, which trashes consumer grades SSDs if done continuously.
Plotting can also be done on the HDDs themselves. It's slower but won't noticeably reduce the HDD's lifespan.
When Chia was launched, there was a lot of speculation and farmers were competing to be first to finish as many plots as possible, so most were plotting on SSDs, and many on consumer SSDs. That's were the "Chia destroys hard drives" myth came from.
There's also arweave, which is similar to IPFS. I've been hoping to migrate my application to being hosted entirely on arweave, or at least test it out to see how it works in practice.
If it works how I think it works, then I can pay a one time fee to host my application, migrate the few APIs that my next.js app is using to be purely onchain Solana programs, then figure out some DNS solution to point it to the right place, and then I don't have to pay monthly hosting, and users can be sure that the value my app provides won't be taken down because I decided to no longer pay for hosting.
It's all theory at least for me right now, but I think it is possible.
It's the opposite, using a decentralized Youtube would save a bunch of bandwidth.
Imagine (granted, a ideal world and maybe not actually possible) a world where every routes and computer is a node that both serves and receives data. Suddenly, your ISP can start to aggressively serve traffic from their edge-nodes. If a video goes viral, your local network can fetch it directly from your neighbors network instead of reaching out to the internet to fetch it. We'll be reducing the traffic massively.
But yes, it's a ideal world and probably not possible to execute in reality as the market forces behind paying for bandwidth is so strong.
My understanding is that the dat protocol is basically BitTorrent with version control, so that you can update e.g. a website published on it rather than everyone always sharing whatever version of a file was originally uploaded. https://www.datprotocol.com/
My understanding is that Hypercore is the successor to dat and also operates along similar lines, but I'll admit that the details are over my head. https://hypercore-protocol.org/
Beaker Browser originally built on top of dat, underwent a significant rewrite and now uses Hypercore instead. https://beakerbrowser.com/
> Does a “Web3” that depends on Twitter for its marketing and coordination channel really deserve the name? You might say, “Oh, just wait; Web3 will make a Twitter of its own.” No, it won’t. Such a platform would be useless to Web3, because there would be no one there to recruit
Web 2.0, while nebulous, is reasonably defined as "the web as an application platform". Web 1.0 is for documents; static. Web 2.0 couldn't exist without 1.0; it took HTML, CSS, added JavaScript (well, argue the term "added", its nebulous, we're speaking in broad terms), and "evolved" it (or "devolved" depending on who you ask) to support much deeper user interaction and productivity.
Moreover; Web 1.0 is still right here. It didn't go anywhere. Its as easy as its always been to publish a static site with just HTML.
Anyone on the Web3 side who argues "P2P or Nothing" is, frankly, just as pointless as someone on the other side who says "haha, all your marketing is on Web2 Twitter, you people can't even build a social network!". Its not a zero sum game, despite what the semver naming scheme asserts (and let's be fair: Web2 started it! Web3 just adopted their inaccuracy).
Really love a lot of the other points made here, though. Lots of things to ponder over.
> The money thing confounds evaluation; it’s like trying to look at a star next to the sun [...] would you still be curious about Web3 if those currencies were worthless, in dollar terms? [...] The Ethereum Virtual Machine, humming heart of Web3, is a computer that charges you many dollars to execute a very small program very slowly. [...] They were about other things — science and coffee pots, links and camera lenses — while Web3 is, to a first approximation, about Web3.
I think a lot about sort-of the thrust of all these points. Web3/ETH/etc are super interesting from a technical angle, but what "real" work are they accomplishing? First thing people point to: DeFi. But that's self-referential, as he says, and moreover, finance sucks; its important, but its fake. Where's the real productivity in Web3? Well, the Second thing; ETH VM, which is a joke.
NFTs feel like a "third" large use-case of Web3, and could be the first interesting one, as a way to create digital scarcity. I'm not sure if its good or bad, but it is, at least, Natural, and Interesting. But its still self-referential and rooted in finance.
Point being, I think I would be far, far more interested in Web3 if it actually wasn't so mired in finance. I love his wording: its like trying to look at a [planet] next to the sun. But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't exist without its roots in finance; that's how you get people interested.
While always interesting to hear peoples thoughts on Web3, it doesn't really matter.
It's here to stay, NFT opened the floodgates and in 10 after the usual crashes and bull market runs, everyone will be integrated onto the blockchain one way or another.
> Web3 is best understood as a game, or a game of games. I don’t intend that as a dig: it’s a really good game! Vast and open-ended, deeply social, with lots of scores to tally … AND you can win real money?? I mean, that’s terrific.
That is the best explanation of Web3, it is like one of those Reddit April's folks events, just a social game.
Please keep tedious flamewar off HN. You've been posting a lot like this, and we ban that sort of account. It's not what this site is for, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.
I think it captures a lot of the current culture with crypto and NFTs. A lot of it reminds me of when reality TV began. Suddenly we had a new class of celebrities who weren't singers or actors. Reality TV stars, famous people whose claim to fame was being famous.
Circular logic. Positive fedback loops. You should "invest" in this NFT collection because look at how many other people are buying this NFT collection.
Web3 is more than speculative NFTs and I expect we'll see some important things come out of it, just with a lot of surprises and broken expectations along the way.
I'm quite bullish on web3 after having a chat with a mate who's developing on the terra protocol.
As disclosure, I don't own more than 500usd in crypto (which I mined at a much lower price), don't have a trading account anywhere and have never speculated on it.
However, the reason web3 excites me is this. Imagine the web, but there's a value exchange mechanism built in (a payment system if that helps your imagination).
I see a lot of frontier tech wild west stuff going on and that's fine. Let's not look at the trees here. There have a been a lot of web 1 and 2 approaches that are no longer.
But things like braves attention token to relpace the advertisement model and micro transactions for supporting pages directly.
On chain tools which do away with backends, payment processors, account management etc
NFTs as true assets. Currently the closest thing to a digital asset that we have is an email account that we don't want to have blocked or lose.
Now you have people with 5000$ NFTs that they have a level of attachment to and can use as collateral.
They seem silly now, but it meets the definition of a digital asset. And that will help grow a network of tools that use them.
One example, you put your NFT up as collateral for a DeFi loan, you don't pay it back by the time given, a smart contract repos your NFT.
Obviously this is a lot of speculation and opinion, how it all plays out is not going to be and already hasn't been a smooth ride. However, it's bringing a lot of innovation very rapidly.
And one last thing for the sceptics, try to remember that crypto doesn't solve technical problems, it solves problems at a societal level.
Ransomware is going to be much more expensive to do.
Right now there is little cost to doing bad things on the internet.
But the point is a little different.
Crypto solves among others the problem of technology moving faster than legislation in ways that can't be tampered with.
That's the big innovation of bitcoin. Someone created a store of value system and threw away the keys to the engine room which means it can't be tampered with by rough actors.
> And one last thing for the sceptics, try to remember that crypto doesn't solve technical problems, it solves problems at a societal level.
It seems to me like it does the opposite. It takes the problems rampant in society thanks to capitalism and moves them into the digital space, with no real benefit.
Data has the advantage of almost free replication, a lack of scarcity that might finally allow us to move forward as a society, allowing culture to be shared freely between free people. Instead crypto folks, blinded by their ideology, try their best to remove that advantage so they can make it just another capitalist asset to be traded.
And that's not all - the price we pay for their attempts to keep shackling culture to capitalism is the destruction of our climate and acceleration towards the apocalypse.
461 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 307 ms ] thread> Each week you get...
> A rundown of opportunities
> A new crypto tactic to learn
> A new strategy to consider
> A recap with an action list
Absolutely zero focus on technical details...
I'm in 2 months now and only scratched the surface.
In the Developer DAO (which is in founding) we currently plan to make all these web3 learning resources more accessible.
But right now, you can look here for resources: https://github.com/Developer-DAO/resources
The resources themselves, when created, should reach as many people as possible.
To be honest, I hope it fails. Developer communities are one of the very few places in crypto that aren't totally infested by Ponzi grifters and where you can find honest conversation, so I wasn't exactly thrilled when I saw this pop up. We don't need more wonky centrally-managed incentives. Incentives can be harmful. It most often reduces to a simple Ponzi.
It feels like a refreshing alternative to the run of the mill VC/startup model.
I would have expected OR instead of AND. :)
I'm not sure if you're just being purposefully obtuse, but this is most definitely not true[1]. Consensus protocols (which are very salient in blockchains) have been studied in distributed computing since like the 70s; the EVM is basically a distributed Turing machine; etc.
[1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/2/234355-blockchains-fro...
I think you're arguing against a straw man here, nowhere did I claim the blockchain is foundational to distributed computing...
> Distributed computing is pretty interesting, and even more-so when there's a code complexity resource you need to optimize for (gas).
I thought this implied an equivocation between distributed computing and web3 stuff. If that wasn't the intent, mea culpa, sorry.
That's not fun. That's work. From TFA:
> Remember: The DAO — first of its kind, from which all present DAOs take their name — failed so badly it required a fork of the Ethereum blockchain.
You don't want to be stuck holding the bag on something like that.
feels crazy i have to say this on HN. this place has really changed over the years. what happened to the whole earth quotes.
"fail fast fail often"
at least Stuart Brand is still daring to explore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w
I have some really expensive JPEGs I need to unload
Some would consider learning a old, outdated programming language a waste of time, but sometimes learning something new just to learn something new is just... Fun!
Some high signal ones are @Bantg from Yearn Finance, @gakonst from Paradigm, @epolynya for Modular Blockchain info, @iamDCinvestor for macro view and NFTs.
You can find a lot more good ones by seeing these individuals replies. And if you like, you can follow me as well @_nd_go, I try to keep my feed fairly high signal
Sufficiently non-tulipy?
Also, I read the Transitional Gains Trap paper a few years ago and really liked it, but forgot the name and couldn't find it again, so you helped me find it again, thanks!
https://eips.ethereum.org/
https://ethereumcatherders.com/
Play with the tools like https://eth-brownie.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
https://hardhat.org/
https://www.cairo-lang.org/docs/hello_starknet/index.html
Note these are eth focused, but there is overlap with zcash/cosmos/polkadot and the many evm chains that now exist.
I’d also recommend: https://gov.yearn.finance/ and https://forum.makerdao.com/ for insight into how protocols are managed.
Both those features lean heavily on the work I do on Ganache, an Ethereum simulator that has all sorts of nice development features that a public node doesn't.
1. we're starting to see the emergence of next-gen managed crypto cloud, so one can just start building on alchemy free tier for example, i can still use truffle in my dev env, but i can also just roll the functionality i need natively to the cloud
2. solidity packs a lot of fintech logic in a concise amount of code. an experimental auction dapp came in at like 150 lines. i'm not exactly building Compound here (yet)!
Whatever you'll find under the web3 banner is, unfortunately, complete garbage.
[1]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/23/Nitter-and-other-internet...
If anyone is interested in the decentralized web without the ponzi-like elements (I say ponzi-like though I should reiterate again that I think defi has value), I'd recommend this talk by Vitalik, "Things that matter outside of defi": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsb7clrXMQ
Ethereum Foundation blog is a good read on technical detail with no price discussion: https://blog.ethereum.org/
Can't they use something "web3" even for this basic task of hosting a git repository (remembering that git itself is completely de-centralized)?
That said, it's nice to see there's some serious work going into this new stuff... driven by a non-profit foundation https://radicle.foundation/ , that does make me take it more seriously, I will check it out.
Of course, any interactions with the blockchain directly (calling methods of deployed smart contracts, or transferring tokens), are decentralized, but if you want to verify the source code of the contract you're interacting with, the most convenient way again involves relying on a centralized service (etherscan or similar for other blockchains), while the decentralized way would involve downloading the contract source yourself, compiling it, and comparing that with what's on the blockchain.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29139813
- dscvr.one
- oc.app
- distrikt.io
Disclosure: I work at DFINITY.
[1] https://internetcomputer.org/
[2] https://smartcontracts.org/
Otherwise I generally read CoinTelegraph but it can get very bullish at times.
Then look for people with .ETH to their name. A lot of them are technical and Ethereum Foundation members.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188948
Can we add group #3, people who are profoundly uninterested in this version of Web3 even despite all the money in it?
I was a fan of decentralisation when it stood for federated software and the idea that the web should generally be the same for hobbyists and professionals.
I really can't see a desirable vision of the future with a web based on artificial scarcity, intentional resource waste and anarchocapitalism.
You've got my vote on that one.
I wonder about this, because an awful lot of post-2008ish technology simply seems to be "like before, but different enough that we think we can be the first movers of the Next Big Thing, and therefore make a killing."
When you really get down to it, a lot of the popular technology isn't all that different from IRC, Usenet, etc., just app-ified and Web-ified (and emoji-ified, of course). I'm not sure moving to a "Web3" paradigm is going to be all that different, just with a new set of Very Important People driving it.
I have no doubt the future successful decentralized networks will use or evolve from cryptocurrencies, but not being inspired by the current crypto landscape is completely understandable. The Ponzis drown everything out these days, they cloud the judgment of too many, making the public discourse around this field unpalatable. In percentage terms, almost nobody in crypto today care about what they're actually building or what for. It's all about raising money, or pushing a Ponzi in which they are invested.
Doesn't matter if it's PoW, PoS, PoWhatever - fundamentally, crypto is about ensuring that there is a certain group of participants (miners) that can alter the shared state, while everyone who does not belong to this group cannot.
Furthermore, the group must become ever more entrenched over time because security relies on the fact that getting into this group is hard - so supposedly, those who are in the group have no interest in acting harmfully to the network. (Which is a big assumption by itself, btw)
I find it a bit weird that blockchain tech has pretty much captured the term "decentralisation" for itself, as it has some fundamental drive to centralisation built into its core.
Yes, it's decentralised in the sense that in theory everyone can become a miner. Except this is not true: If everyone could become a miner, so could adversaries and the append-only property would be gone.
This and the specific assumptions how a monetary system and an economy should work, which are also deeply baked into the tech.
When a miner finds a block, they can put transactions in it and submit it to the other miners, in order to acquire the transaction fees and the block reward for themselves.
These transactions are signed, miners can't impersonate participants. They are also incentivized to include actual transactions instead of their own thanks to the miner fee. If they try to censor a transaction, the next miner to find a block could include the transaction in the chain anyway, so they have little incentive to withhold transactions for non-economical reasons.
They can't rewrite the history, they can only push one block on top of it.
If I understand you correctly, the "centralization" you're talking about is the whole point of a consensus protocol: to get 'decentralized' participants to agree on a single 'centralized' state.
https://onezero.medium.com/why-decentralization-matters-5e3f...
Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc., are hugely centralized platforms because they successfully attracted hundreds of millions—in Facebook's case, billions—of users. Users are incentivized to be on those platforms because they like what those platforms offer. The internet has massive centralized platforms because users like those platforms.
A cryptonetwork-based challenger to Facebook isn't going to win by just adding tokens; any challenger, regardless of technology, needs to be a better Facebook than Facebook is, and it needs to be a lot better. But that's also the Catch-22 here: if our hypothetical "CryptoFacebook" finds a way to succeed economically, there's nothing intrinsic to the cryptonetwork that keeps CryptoFacebook from being a huge centralized platform. Big companies can use tokens, too!
In fact, I actually think the linked article casts some doubt on whether Dixon really understands "decentralization," as he compares Encarto to Wikipedia and sees Wikipedia as a decentralization success story. It's a "cathedral vs. bazaar" success story, to be sure, but Wikipedia is not a decentralized platform! It's a big monolithic system that one organization has massive control over. At the end of the day, the Wikimedia Foundation gets to set the rules for what happens at the wikipedia.org domain. If the community doesn't like it, they can try and fork it and create a replacement, sure. But that's a huge challenge—and it's also not really relevant to decentralization. It's more like LibreOffice supplanting OpenOffice as "premiere open source alternative to Microsoft Office"; the "center" moved from one project to the other.
So, TL;DR: I appreciate the link, and it's a good read. But it just doesn't make a convincing case that "build it on the blockchain" improves on what we have in material ways.
What made the early web great was all the weird stuff people did for fun and self-expression and what made it worse was when lots and lots of money got involved.
I don't see how getting more monetization involved would make anything better.
Now it seems it is something vaguely related to blockchain. At the moment blockchain is directly tied to crypto currency, which to almost everybody looks like a giant Ponzi scheme.
Until the concept of blockchain is completely divorced from crypto currencies they can name this nonsence whatever they want. It won't stick. Nobody cares except for the few people already making money off this.
DAOs, NFTs, tokens, decentralized file storage, decentralized identity via public keys and smart contracts, tokens as authentication, on-chain reputation systems, oracles, fundraising with no third parties or gatekeepers, etc are all here to stay and will evolve further and faster than your bias will let you see.
If you have an alternative to the monopolistic web and mobile dystopia we find ourselves in, wherein we can only speak within the narrow band of corporately acceptable speech and expression, and we can only transact with the blessings of PayPal's overlords, that doesn't involve crypto or blockchain, I suggest you quit your job to build it.
Otherwise, I fear you might be too late at disrupting the establishment, as the builders are well under way, working on Web3 powered by crypto (in both senses of the word).
Your giant list of of terminology isn't making much of an impact on me. In fact many of those sounds terrible.
So giving your post the benefit of the doubt, when can I expect to be disrupted out of a job by even a single item on your list?
No. You don't. because you also have to verify that the person who is selling tickets actually has the right to do so.
See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29277622
An NFT can store on-chain metadata. A simple boolean flag would let you mark it as resellable or not. In minting the tickets you can create a validator that checks authenticity but you can check these things yourself: that it originates from the organization for example. The metadata is immutable so if it's come from the organization it's authentic. Because NFTs are tokens are money you can transfer USDC for BackstreetBoysGig#Ticket1021 where O2ArenaTicketVerifier authenticates the ticket as part of the transaction only confirming it if the ticket is resellable and authentic.
How does a company know their tickets have been resold, if they don't want that to happen? Well you look at the tx history of the NFT - if it's been traded > 1 time it's been resold.
Compare these potential benefits with the existing ticket industry (including resale sites) and you see several benefits. You can remove intermediary companies meaning people pay less in fees and you can avoid ticket fraud. Is this an issue? Yes: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/feb/24/touts-who-made...
You, yourself, you: who is this "you". How do you verify that a particular resellable ticket actually comes from an org authorized to sell tickets? Who's to stop me from selling counterfeit tickets?
> where O2ArenaTicketVerifier authenticates the ticket as part of the transaction
So. In the end the org itself verifies it. You know that they can easily do it now, without the overhead of blockchain?
> How does a company know their tickets have been resold, if they don't want that to happen? Well you look at the tx history of the NFT - if it's been traded > 1 time it's been resold.
Because people will always put all their transactions for resold tickets on the blockchain, right
> Compare these potential benefits
You haven't listed "potential benefits" except maybe tracking reselling of tickets.
> You, yourself, you: who is this "you". How do you verify that a particular resellable ticket actually comes from an org authorized to sell tickets? Who's to stop me from selling counterfeit tickets?
The organisation selling the tickets can create the verifier.
> So. In the end the org itself verifies it. You know that they can easily do it now, without the overhead of blockchain?
Yep absolutely! But it's very hard for someone who's buying the ticket from a third-party to verify the ticket.
> Because people will always put all their transactions for resold tickets on the blockchain, right
The NFT is the ticket. To transfer it is a transaction. If you were to resell the ticket offline and give someone your private key to access the ticket then fair enough but all you need to do here is have a hash of the buyers name as metadata and that resolves that.
Edit: If this isn't a problem, how would you buy a ticket from me to a gig with the information purely available to you about me right now? What would be the process? With a blockchain I could share a link to a transaction where you'd see a ticket is available for $10 USDC, you could put that ticket into the gigs site to verify it or look at the ticket origin and see it's from the organisers account, and send me the 10USDC immediately receiving a valid ticket into your wallet. If you're worried it's not allowed to be resold you can check the policy metadata embedded into the ticket saying "Resales are allowed".
This is pure demagoguery.
> There's a well-known issue of third-party ticket sales and this method allows you to have digital proof that a ticket is authentic
You still haven't said how exactly we know the ticket is authentic: who verifies it's issued by the authorized org (not to mention resellers), who verifies it's authentic when the person shows up with it etc.
> The organisation selling the tickets can create the verifier.
The already do that, without blockchain.
For all the talk of "you don't understand technology" and "there are benefits", you come back to something that already exists and is already implemented: a central organization issues tickets and verifies them.
What exactly does blockchain bring into the picture?
> But it's very hard for someone who's buying the ticket from a third-party to verify the ticket.
How would they verify it form a "first party"? Who's to say who is "first party" and who's not? And that's before we get to the question of authorized resellers, people buying tickets for friends etc.
> If you're worried it's not allowed to be resold you can check the policy metadata embedded into the ticket saying "Resales are allowed".
Once again, there's some unknown "you" who somehow magically verifies some data.
The company creating the tickets will say if it’s resellable etc, these are purely properties of an object.
Verifiers may well exist but how do you know someone hasn’t sold a ticket to two people? How do you know the ticket you receive is the one you see?
Also there may be some language context issues here. With NFT tickets I’m saying it’s possible to essentially use an API provided by an organization to verify a ticket. You can trust O2 Arena will know if a ticket to their own venue is authentic or not. They could provide an API that takes a ticket and returns a Boolean. A monetary transaction can be written that will only complete if the O2 Arena API confirms the ticket being traded is an authentic resellable ticket, otherwise it’d fail. That’s the thing here - we’re talking about programmable money and digital items can be seen as extensions of money with NFTs.
Another example - resellable digital games. You could have a game license that is resellable - any user account can play any game that they own the license for, and NFTs allow you to model this (it allows for trusted trading, it avoids double spend issues, with here cannot not be one instance of an NFT on a chain, etc…)
See, the problem with all you're describing (and the problem with any attempt to apply blockchains to anything) is that:
- it barely manages to cover the simplest of cases that already exist without any blockchain
- it makes a great many other cases needlessly complicated and complex
- for anything beyond the simplest cases (and often for the simplest case itself) it reverts back to approaches that already exist without a blockchain. And if those approaches don't exist, no idea why they would suddenly appear if you throw blockchain into the mix
So, back to your ticketing examples.
# The absolute simplest case: The organiser sells the ticket to a person.
1. Organisers generally don't care whether the person holding the ticket is the person who bought the ticket
You show up with a QR code, the QR code passes, you're through. That's it. For the rather rare cases where a person's authenticity needs to be verified, checking a person's id is more than sufficient.
In the case of blockchain, what is the exact process at the point of entry to the venue to both check that the ticket is valid and that the person is the one who bought it? The moment you say "yeah, the organiser will provide some external validator to check something", you lost: it can be done and is being done already, and you don't need blockchain for this.
2. To verify ticket authenticity the organiser or the ticket "it's possible to use an API", "O2 Arena could provide an API" etc.
"Possible", "could". They could do that already. Do they provide that API now? If not, why? And if not, why will they suddenly decide to provide the API when the tickets are on the blockchain?
So, blockchain brings literally nothing into this: to verify that a ticket is authentic you still have to rely on some third party external to the blockchain to provide some means of verification entirely external to the blockchain. Why do you need blockchain in this case? You can verify a QR code just as easily, and yet O2 Arena doesn't provide an API to do that, go figure.
3. They could provide an API that takes a ticket and returns a Boolean. A monetary transaction can be written that will only complete if the O2 Arena API confirms the ticket being traded is an authentic resellable ticket
So, a party external to the blockchain has to provide an API external to the blockchain that relies on non-standard object metadata recognisable only by that API external to the blockchain to ... write some transaction onto blockchain.
Why is blockchain needed at all in this case? To "make sure that if an object is marked as non-resellable we have a transaction log"? Well, maybe there's value in that, but it relies exclusively on non-existent APIs outside the blockchain that will maybe possibly perhaps appear.
And this "it's non-resellable, so no transactions can be written beyond the original one" preclude or make harder other very simple but very common cases:
# Other very simple but very common cases that are not taken into consideration because crypto-proponents have no idea how the real world works
- tickets are bought as gifts
- tickets are just given away because the person who bought them can't go
- tickets are bought in bulk for a group of people (so as gifts or given away)
- tickets are offered in bulk to orgs or bought in bulk by orgs to distribute between members of the org (corporate events, fan clubs etc.)
- tickets are re-sold by a chain of authorised resellers (chain being the key word here: a shop selling tickets in lower Manhattan could be on step 5 of the reseller ladder)
In the absolute vast majority of cases these cases are immediate and painless now. You buy a ticket and you hand it to another person.
In case of blockchain? Oh. "It's not resellable by the object metadata, so it will be invalid at the point of entry"? Or will you add more and ...
So, passport checks, covid certificate checks, ticket checks. The ticket is non-resellable, non-refundable, non-transferrable to another person.
Guess how many of those steps required a blockchain. Also guess how many of those steps simply worked, and didn't need a blockchain.
Edit: Also worth noting: I bought the ticket through what is essentially a reseller (an aggregator site), and I could verify the ticket's authenticity with the organizer (the air company). Guess how many of these steps needed a blockchain to work.
This... This can already be done and is already being done now, without any blockchains. There's literally nothing difficult in doing this.
We now have a better, faster, cheaper (by orders of magnitude) way to move not goods but value through a network.
Obviously neither of us know how long it'll take for the legacy systems to completely die off, but they will. So I'll simplify the bet to: when, not if. Still game?
Companies can run their own private execution and data availability layer and have full control while not needing to worry about settlement.
Don't paper over history.
The Semantic Web was the first that dreamed of distributed, decentralized taxonomies of data shared p2p. Facebook and Google sidelined it.
I do. I am working on it as a side project. It isn’t blockchain or IPFS.
99% scam. The remaining 1% is either more efficient and scalable in literally any other tech, or are busy re-inventing all the centralised institutions that come from, you know, the need to operate in reality.
> Otherwise, I fear you might be too late at disrupting the establishment
By saying "too late at disrupting the establishment" you're implying that the establishment is already disrupted. It's objectively not.
However I still have yet to be convinced of any real value or need of an NFT. For example let say I am the owner of a famous “Tweet”. This NFT shows exactly what … a unique token saying it’s mine ? A token with no legal recourse to stop others from using what I purchased? If you think about it from an opposing viewpoint in many ways you really own nothing except what people believe you own … which in this case is a small minority of people. A very small subset of people will currently even recognize what an NFT is and an even smaller subset will acknowledge and believe I own anything … reducing its value. Further the information and value of the “Tweet” (or digital art, or whatever) is not contained in the NFT at all.
Let’s say I buy the NFT to some cool digital artwork. Nothing is stopping anyone else from using this artwork… I have no legal recourse to say “heh I own this”. Only a small subset of people will recognize this as any form od ownership at all.
Sorry from my point of view NFT’s seem like a get rich quick fad… maybe am just a grumpy old dude at this point but honestly just don’t much real lasting value here.
https://stratechery.com/2021/unity-buys-weta-digital-an-inte...
Semantic web, 3D web, and whatnot.
It's entirely probably they'll merge at some point if they haven't already.
Think about what it would actually take to implement such a thing:
- Call of Duty and Battlefield - rival games from rival companies - would need to agree to an integration at a VERY deep level
- They would have to share the same asset formats, such that an asset designed for one game could be used in another
- Issues of balance would have to be resolved: just sharing 3D models wouldn't be enough, they would need to agree on a system for modelling damage, armour piercing capabilities, visual effects...
- Then they would have to add blockchain integration deep enough that weapons a player obtains in the game are represented in a way that the other games can see.
- ... not to mention figure out some kind of exchange rate / add some kind of additional economy to their games, which would need to be shared across different games such that e.g. a pistol in Battlefield wasn't worth the same as a machine gun in Call of Duty
That's just off the top of my head.
And... they're supposed to be games! Game design is about balance - creating a set of rules that players enjoy.
Allowing some cryptocurrency-billionaire to jump into any game they like with the best possible guns and armour doesn't sound any fun at all.
Pretty much every idea I see coming out of this space has the same problem: it sounds plausible in a high-level hand-wavy, but collapses the moment you start to dig into the details of how it would work.
(My absolute favourite bad idea is still real estate on the blockchain, where presumably if I forget my password I can no longer sell my house)
I never went through buying property before so I honestly don't know, but most of the people I know just hired a lawyer and got it done and it was never a thing they had to think about afterward.
I've talked to someone who worked on a (non-NFT-based!) solution for this in developing countries -- it turns out that yes, the cost to bribe officials to falsify documents to steal property can be cheaper than the property's market price.
No?
This already happens partly with asset stores like Unity's https://assetstore.unity.com/, where you can just buy assets to use in your games and multiple developers end up using the same assets. There's nothing preventing "popular NFT asset packs" from being a thing that, on top of helping devs make their games faster, would also end up helping indiedevs attract people to their games, since they'd be implementing certain NFT packs and users who own those would be more likely to check those games out.
Like I said, I think it's a pretty weak idea but it's not that crazy or ridiculous to imagine it happening to some degree.
Further, assets aren't used the same way between games. Just because Game A and Game B use the same weapon asset pack doesn't mean it's fungible between games. Game A might use a damage scale from 0-1000 while Game B is rolling virtual dice with bell curve distributions. Game C uses a sword asset pack but shoots the swords out of a sword shooting bazooka strapped to a unicorn.
If I love Game C with its accurate unicorn physics, I don't care that it uses the same asset pack as Game B that's a D&D workalike.
There's virtually no utility for anyone storing the license of an asset pack on a blockchain. Unity doesn't care if I own a license to a game using an asset pack, they're not going to take on the cost of distributing it to me. Unicorn Bazooka doesn't want to give free advertising to the D&D workalike game by associating with it on a blockchain.
A game engine built such that it can track games made with it that use a specific asset can have a percentage of the game's profits automatically go to the asset creator's wallet. So if you create some set of assets that are used by 500 different games, you're getting a very small percentage of each sale of each of the 500 games and you're being compensated for your work in a way that properly captures each game's success, rather than having each game pay you a flat fee. Wouldn't that be great?
I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.
So it's great that someone making assets can only make a good return if the maker of the game is successful? If an otherwise good asset(s) are used in 500 shitty games that don't sell any copies, the asset creator gets screwed. They have no influence on the quality of the end product, successful marketing, or even whether it's gets completed. That's just working for free unless you get lucky. If that model of pay took off then a lot of people making assets will get boned and a couple will win the lottery.
For a game maker it's not much better of a deal. They get a low/no cost asset during development in promise for a cut of future sales. Now they've got percentages coming off every sale in perpetuity. They can only sell their game at a price the market will bear. If that's a relatively low price all those percentages for assets chip away at their net.
I don't see that model being great for anyone. Outside of lottery winners most participants just get screwed.
> I think people like you, who say that "there's virtually no utility to [new tech]" are just lacking a little imagination.
I might be lacking in imagination. It might also be the wisdom to see a lot of crypto-based ideas are just "solving" problems by introducing different problems.
Selling game assets on a blockchain and paying asset creators is only meaningful if people accept that blockchain's authority. If it falls out of favor/use/legality then it has zero usable value to anyone. I don't see any online stores accepting Beanz or Flooz and I know I've got some Geoffrey dollars somewhere that aren't worth much. I don't see why you think anyone will see any value in a particular blockchain around today.
And all of that hard stuff could be done entirely without blockchain, and would indeed not be made any easier by blockchain, because it's all just tricky gamedev work. Once you've got all that stuff done, you could just use an API or a normal database to transfer "digital assets" between games, and skip the blockchain stuff.
Oh, is making an interoperable API too hard? Well, it's not going to be any easier on the blockchain...
The new things people propose as Web 3 use cases, e.g. interoperable game items, simply aren't practical. That's why they don't exist already — not because they require blockchain to build.
I've heard people argue that big tech social media silos will be replaced by decentralized Web 3 social media, but why would they be? We already have decentralized social media. The reason Mastodon can't compete with Twitter isn't because it needs blockchain; it's because Twitter has all the users and all the money, and that's because centralization is just more profitable. It boils down to economics, not technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP#Non-native_deployments
It’s kinda like McDonalds doing a promotion. If you bring a Burger King packaging you get a free Big Mac.
Poe's law is striking again, can't tell if you're serious or pointing out the flaw in the thinking.
Doesn't that statement show how crazy this is? This never happens in the real world so why would it happen in the virtual world.
Also I'm way behind on this stuff but isn't trading of different things in different contexts the reason we invented money?
Also, it is more likely that a few leaders will emerge in the NFT space offering a framework or platform as a service that is used by rival game development companies. You know, like when you boot up a game and see all of the logos for the frameworks they used.
Im not arguing that this is good. Just saying it is more likely to happen than not.
Going with your analogy, think a bit more carefully: does that guy in the parking lot who sold you a Big Mac receipt have the power to compel Burger King to give you free food? That’s all the power an NFT has — there’s nothing magic about it, just a question about whether the business in question wants to do it. If they do, they don’t need a blockchain. If they don’t, a blockchain can’t make them.
Well yes, allowing to import an NFT is a business decision. Not sure what the point is?
Same thing with other systems. Sony doesn't want their games to run on Xbox, and MS doesn't want theirs to run on Playstation. Why? Because then you wouldn't buy their consoles and they wouldn't get the money from licensing and cuts from their digital stores (you'd be free to choose, if your Xbox broke you could get a Playstation and keep going, breaking their revenue modeL). MS does want games to run on Windows along with their consoles because it keeps developers committing to MS's platform because it's sufficiently hard to migrate to the other consoles or OSes.
Gamers can't stop pre-paying for games which launch with tons of bugs or paying for micro-transactions which incentivize abusive game design. I am highly skeptical that even 0.1% of buyers would not play a game they otherwise wanted because it didn't allow some way to recognize your items from another game.
Problem is that this information should be private.
If I know you are a heavy user of some other game, maybe I can sell you something to advance in the game quickly instead of having to play a lot.
Is it desirable? For a game company, maybe. But for an insurance firm?
I am not so sure.
Uh, yeah... that's integration!
I think this would end in a lawsuit it you do itm
Does the code for cross-checking who holds what NFT on what platform just materialize out of whole cloth? Does Eth not have an SDK?
> and there is no need to have an agreed between both companies
Yeah, you would. The IP rights don't get thrown out just because there exists a pointer in a ledger that says you paid money to do widgety things with the content on someone's platform.
Also, plenty of games use totally different scales for things. +10 to damage might be a huge benefit in one game, but a tiny benefit in another. The NFT could publish a value like "here's what the max value of the stat is in the original game" so other games could make it proportional, but stats might not necessarily have a max value.
Basically it seems like the only reasonable way to do this is for game developers to cooperate in some way, and if cooperation between devs is needed, the value of using a blockchain instead of a database + API goes away.
If the game just trusts any NFT in the right format to be an item, you wouldn't even need to be a crypto billionaire. Minting an NFT costs less than $100 worth of Ethereum according to a quick Google search. Lots of random gamers would pay that much to mint a set of armor that grants + a million percent to damage or whatever.
The only workaround I can see to people minting insanely overpowered NFT items is to only trust NFTs minted by a whitelist of trusted game developers, so you have to actually get the item in a trusted game. But, of course, that completely defeats the purpose of using blockchain. It might as well be a normal API with a database. In fact that would be much more efficient because of the very high costs of publishing data to a public blockchain.
And I'm not some NFT zealot by the way. I just think the way you're presenting that use case is quite a strawman. You're saying the companies have to agree to a bunch of stuff, but they don't, and that's the whole potential imo -- each can pick and choose how and if they want to bring a given NFT in-game.
Walking through your points --
- Rival companies have to agree to integration at a deep level -- they both have to independently decide to support a given NFT type, yes, but they don't have to agree with each other about how it's integrated. For instance, one might allow you to don your armor purely for aesthetics, whereas the other might add some performance advantage for owning it.
- They have to share asset formats -- not true -- the original NFT might point to some image, but each game could simply verify token ownership, and have their own assets representing it. Loot, for instance, is just text on a background. There's a lot of room for creativity in interpreting how those text descriptions might be implemented.
- Issues of balance have to be shared -- not true -- because each game could balance and implement the item the way they choose. And again, the base case could be a pure aesthetic implementation.
- They have to add deep blockchain integration -- I don't follow your point there -- they certainly would have to call the chain to verify NFT ownership, but again, they don't have to agree how to represent the items.
- Exchange rate -- isn't that the point of a public market like OpenSea? The market is already there, bidding and offering every day.
- Billionaires paying to win -- who's to say some games wouldn't invert what you'd expect so that common NFTs can actually keep up alongside rares, or even have advantages over them? Maybe in pitting a mob of commons against the rares, for instance. Again, this introduces more possible choice for players -- if some company today breaks their game mechanics to favor pay to win, you don't have a way to move your existing investment in that game anywhere else. Whereas if frustration grows with some popular NFT game, a competitor could come along with better balance and eat their lunch.
Eventually you'll have a handful of big NFT companies whose entire purpose is to manage the hat economy, because if you throw the door open to any old NFT, you immediately tank the scarcity that keeps it running. But since we have to trust a handful of big NFT companies anyway, they can now just bring the data about who owns which hat in-house and provide an API to every game that wants to interoperate. RIP the blockchain.
Steam Community Market[0] pretty much a long running example of such a system, but it is missing one thing, you can't 'cash out' beyond your Steam wallet to spend on other items that aren't games or other virtual items. I think this is a valuable feature as it prevents the massive speculation on virtual goods that would absolutely ruin the ability to collect/use virtual goods for an economically efficient price.
Without it, I 100% believe artificial scarcity would prevail in search for the maximum value extraction.
[0] https://steamcommunity.com/market/
Around 2014 I looked, out of curiosity, into Ethereum and its EVM before Ethereum came out. Back then I even ran a node on... a Raspberry Pi (!). If I remember correctly even in 2014/2015, the official Ethereum client/node, written in Go, called "geth", was already using the term "web3" everywhere.
I'm not saying it's good or bad that people are using that term but all I'm saying is Ethereum using the term "web3" predates the "Metaverse" announcement by at least seven years IIRC.
It may be "en vogue" now but credit where it's due: Ethereum was using that term a long time ago already.
So as far as I'm concerned the name is perfect, in that it stands for hype and hazy thinkfluencing that is trying to puff itself up into looking like foundational change.
It is amazing how much more cogent and actually interesting tech twitter is when you remove all of the "Will this make me rich and important, and quick?" web3 noise. It's the most fetch thing out there right now.
On the flip side, at least it drowned out the "Miami is the new silicon valley" noise (though humorously almost the same set of people are behind both)
No dog in this flight.
The confusion is the point, actually.
This is about hyping something that nobody wants except for people who want to use it to exploit the rest of us in some way and the pool of marks who think they're going a A) get rich off of it or B) reap some vague future benefit that you don't actually need a blockchain for.
And yes, I know that terms in English get overloaded and that's part of life. Fine... but at least do it when there's a good reason for it. There's no particular reason to call this crypto/blockchain/ethereum/smart-contract/defi stuff "Web3". It could just as easily be "Web 4.0" or "Web 5.0" or "Fzbnnng^ztttzz@)@lyzmkizt" or whatever.
The point is that the data about the assets should outlast the interest of the current owner. It should outlast the physical assets themselves.
Hard to get another architecture which can manage data beyond the lifetime of any given market actor.
The application is B2B trading of assets between dealers, so they don't have to mess around with devaulting every time the assets change ownership, introducing risk of fraud every time.
There is also a lot of insurance involved, to answer your probably next question: if the vault loses something or an employee accidentally drives a forklift over it, the NFT holder gets paid.
It works. Pilots right now, but it works.
Why? What does this accomplish?
One of them is half a million years old, but still made by human(ish) hands.
Preserving the data for future generations is part of the job.
It's a fixable problem.
A big part of the problem here is that the high cost of crypto transactions and NFT minting means many Web3 things literally can't afford to let people get started for free.
And there are also other blockchains for which transactions indeed cost pennies, and which are faster than Ethereum. I love Ethereum for what it's provided to the ecosystem, but at the same time, I've never used it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211111052337/https://society.r...
Ownership over rent, sharing info without replying/participating in social diarrhea, local storage first, no regional restrictions (hi, Google fucks), small and slow before big and instant (shove your Prime up yours), less is more and all that shit.
I've realized I'm not overcoming thousands or millions of years of evolution in a lifetime, so no need to stress over the "progress" people made in recent years.
Keep your modern hyperconnectedness, it works great as a buttplug.
Crypto currencies are terrible - or at least I have heard of no reason why people need them outside of ponzi scheming, ransomwaring, or your drug deal - especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green.
That said, things like distributed file storage (IPFS) and distributed identity are really interesting. We really do need solutions around how we prevent China, Russia, and other governments from basically brainwashing folks through turning off any part of the internet they don't like. I'm all-in on that part.
Stripe is an American company. Why should Iranians be bared from participating in the decentralized web?
Things to think about: how does this prevent embargos? If you’re in the US, any means of doing business with someone on the watchlist is a legal hazard. If you’re in a country which doesn’t follow that, you have other options. Changing the tech doesn’t change the law.
As for alleged censor-resistance, consider what happens when major exchanges are required to follow the laws. Coins become tainted once they’ve been used for illegal transactions, reducing both the number of potential buyers dramatically and how much they’re willing to pay. Miners in countries party to international agreements may even refuse to process them. The fact that the first transaction couldn’t be blocked doesn’t mean everyone’s just giving up.
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-c...
The US can't prevent Wikileaks from receiving Bitcoin donations, for instance. They can punish one of their citizen who sent Wikileaks money, but not take the money back.
In this case, you need to think more carefully about the various ways in which activity can be deterred or prevented:
1. Blockchains give a permanent, public record. That has a chilling effect on anything potentially censorable because while the government might need a witness to know that you dropped $50 in the Wikileaks jar, they can at their leisure tell that you did so with cryptocurrency. 2. “But it's [pseudo-]anonymous!” — if any part of your transaction network becomes known to them, they can link that wallet to you. Better hope that you, your friends, and every business you interact with have perfect opsec and all of your software is flawless about masking its network traffic. 3. Most people use exchanges and buy from businesses which have a legal presence in a country which is part of international agreements. That means that when, say, the US puts someone on a sanctions list transactions might be blocked outright for people using a bank which checks the blacklist and refuses to take on liability for prohibited activity, but if successful those coins have less value because fewer people are going to buy them in return and they'll pay less. You can probably get Bitcoin to Wikileaks, for example, but that Wikileaks wallet holder is going to have a hard time turning it into useful currency which will be accepted by legitimate businesses in most of the world. Paying to launder it is possible but unreliable and you'll be running afoul of the same infrastructure used to track organized crime, and presumably paying similar rates to do so.
even if you're insisting that censorship has to be preemptive, then the chilling effect from these arrests still counts.
Whether you think it's fair to call this "censorship" or not, the fact remains that the state can control how its citizens use the blockchain, because it can control its citizens.
I put “hack” in quotes because at the time the community loudly was proclaiming “code is law” and if you accept that the person accused of hacking didn’t break any “laws” of the DAO…he simply used it according to the code published in the smart contract. The community decided to hard fork, change the rules and censor his transaction.
You could make the same argument that was censorship in bitcoin had a transaction been made that exploited the inflation bug before the fix was pushed out: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/
It also likely would not be possible today, see the Parity hack in 2017, which lost people close to the Ethereum foundation a 9 figures amount, but didn't get forked away even though they tried.
Technology won't defeat policy.
We can't code our way out of laws that govern information, whether that be copyright law or censorship laws.
We can probably have obtuse systems like TOR... So long as they remain obtuse :)
That would put policy people in a dilemma wouldn't it?
Technology shapes policy, but policy is always the one calling the shots.
Some autocrats would happily shut down the internet because someone hurt their feelings.
I'm joking a bit.. but my first thought is: ad companies would love it, if I couldn't turn off ads.
If you take the bad parts of every cryptocurrency and made them into one single bad cryptocurrency, then yes, you would be correct, but all of these things are better in certain cryptocurrencies than traditional financial systems.
Cryptocurrency doesn't mean only Bitcoin or Ethereum.
citation needed
As a whole I agree with your statement objectively, but this cannot be said for each blockchain uniformly.
We also don’t need the internet to communicate, gift cards are used to pay scammers, there are other much larger consumers of oil like cars and planes. It’s disingenuous to dismiss this technology for these reasons, there are definite upsides worth exploring that you have alluded to.
A good part of financial "regulation" is not for consumer protection - it's not for consumers at all, it is for governments. The US government is free to regulate the dollar, because it is a currency they issue. Given their track record of mismanaging fundamental economics, I have no interest in a value store issued by a notoriously incompetent entity that is also inconvenient, volatile, unreliable, being actively hyper-inflated, and not even under my control to begin with.
This whole "you dont need crypto unless you are ponzi, ransom or drugs" shill is getting really old. We all know how "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" plays out logically and ethically. I haven't held onto USD for more than a day after getting paid in over three years now, other than what is absolutely necessary for transactions that still rely on USD. I'm a software engineer with no criminal record/affiliations, and strong morals as well as ethics - which is why I still pay all the taxes I should in USD, and circumvent the otherwise technologically inferior and fundamentally unethical method of value exchange for everything else. So please, give me a single reason to use a dinosaur bank over crypto that is actually in my own best interest.
I agree, it's too slow, but how does crypto get us all of these things, which we need to prevent total chaos.
At the end of the day, things like drug and human trafficking don't happen because the people behind them are able to launder money - they happen because of a complete and utter failure on the behalf of our government. All of these issues were here long before crypto, and while yes, CC definitely does not help these issues go away - quite the opposite, actually, and that part is unfortunate ...but it's not the root cause of the problem. And the half-assed solution currently in place is so inadequate that even otherwise sane individuals resort to scapegoating things like crypto. Is the current precedent of "lots of drugs are coming out of [XYZ] country, let's destroy everyone's lives in it unilaterally with sanctions in an attempt to hinder those responsible" really something you are okay with?
For example: the US goes to war with a country I have family in, and now I can't support my loved ones. I could not care less about the economic policy, because enabling my grandparents as well as great grandparents to buy food and basic life necessities is far more important to me. In some parts of the world, even Western Union and those services restrict this - or charge exorbitant fees which make CC transaction fees look tame in comparison. Choosing a geographic location and unilaterally destroying the standard of living there through economic sanctions might as well be mass genocide.
1) Finance (DeFi). Even for valid (non-criminal) uses cases, there are numerous laws and regulations that translate into crazy fees to do proper crossboder money transfer. I transfer money every month from the US to different countries in LATAM to pay employees, and historically you get screwed with various fees depending on how you structure the transfer (e.g. to the employee directly vs. to an entity in the receiving country that disburses the money to different local employees).
During the past few years I have encountered everything:
- unexpected fees beyond the local transfer fee at the receiving end (that change some times) (hello folks at Interbank!)
- low-fee provider that canceled our account because the TOS said that the service was meant to be used to send money to family and not to employees (hello folks at Xoom!)
- holding of money transferred for a week because of some threshold passed that triggered some AML check (hello folks at BCP!)
- provider that canceled transfer to a particular country for political instability (hello folks at Transferwise!)
- etc etc
All that goes away when you use p2p networks (like the ones from Binance https://p2p.binance.com/en?fiat=CNY&payment=ALL) and stablecoins to transfer money. The fees are low (or sometimes non-existent) and the transfer happens in seconds (vs the hours/days in a traditional system). Literally millions of cross-border dollars get transferred this way every day. Additionally, I hear of other folks who have escaped authoritarian regimes but still have family in those countries where there are strict restrictions to send/receive money. Guess what they are using?
2) Digital Property/Rights: Whether you want to accept it or not, there is an entire market where all kinds of property is being transferred through smart contracts. Sometimes the traditional digital item (say an NFT) has an associated real-world contract attached to it that extends some sort of right/ownership of a physical item in the real world. The rights to these items is being transferred from person to person every day. That market keeps growing, and it is not just "exchanging jpegs" anymore.
For both of these use cases, there are real world scenarios where a central authority has been by-passed for a legitimate transaction. And it happens every day today. The use cases for web3 is not running a "distributed Wordpress instance", but other useful real-world use-cases like these that we are starting to discover.
Does it? Do you have any examples of this? How does the ownership get enforced?
This seems to address the most salient criticism of NFTs which is that the only thing which changes ownership is the NFT itself, but I have never seen it in practice.
Also, does anyone actually use fraction? They seem to be just selling a platform.
2) The example of fraction is not just a "selling platform", but an actual real problem being solved (fractional ownership of real-world items). In LATAM for example, there are exceptionally convoluted structures to partially build and own low-income centers of commerce (kind of like malls). Fake ownership documents are very common. This solves that problem squarely. There are more real-world use cases like this.
Does it? How do you know? It sounds like that may just be an aspiration at this point.
Has this technology actually been used to solve a real world problem? If so where?
DeFi would have to follow those laws, right, and would be just as much of a pain to use after it has all of that compliance built in?
Otherwise, what you're doing is just illegal, and the alternative you should be comparing crypto to is something like "hiding money in carseat cushions", not TransferWise, right?
Are any of those smart contracts for physical items recognized by, you know, actual laws, courts, governments, etc.?
> Sometimes the traditional digital item (say an NFT) has an associated real-world contract attached to it that
That is the only thing required for an actual contract for an actual physical object, and NFT is just some scam attached to it.
Yes it should. Hence the reasons why there are alternative blockchains that not only aim to supersede Ethereum but they are specifically designed to scale and handle more applications and use-cases with cheaper transaction fees and are also EVM compatible.
The only reason that they have decided on something unscalable and expensive as Ethereum is because they missed out on Bitcoin. So the Web3 crowd decides to hype it everywhere.
I still cannot use Ethereum to buy my groceries. Therefore it is completely useless for that case.
"If we could do it, we could build a completely decentralized version of our current internet," Hendricks says. "With no firewalls, no tolls, no government regulation, no spying. Information would be totally free in every sense of the word."
That's it. That's all that needs to happen to keep me on side. The more our online lives and worlds fulfil the above statement, the better.
However, the internet is infrastructure and right now both governments and service providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google effectively force moderation on communities becasue they increasingly control the infrastructure and methods of access that communitites need to use that infrastructure. The goal of "web3" or decentralisation in general should be to remove those layers and give communities complete freedom and control over how and if they moderate content.
To activate your free speech rights, first buy a computer and build your own datacenter. Next, start your own ISP. Finally, tell others about your site, without piggybacking on any existing sites. In this way, all citizens can express their views without fear of censorship… and without fear of anyone ever noticing. https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
The limits are determined by society, usually through the vehicle of government.
> What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you?
Then I petition society to bend the collective opinion towards my own, or I change my opinion to be more in line with society.
> It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
The whole point of societies, in the most general sense, is to improve the lives of it's members, in aggregate, over time. Or, as the Buddhists say, to reduce suffering. Systematic exclusion of antisocial and/or deleterious actors is an explicit design goal of functioning societies. To accomplish this goal societies must first acknowledge that the essential nature of their task is subjective, and requires moral judgment. This can produce bad outcomes, sure. But that possibility doesn't invalidate the approach. Laws can also be used to oppress, but we don't throw our hands up and say justice is impossible.
Except in 99% of cases there is no technical reason for those tokens to exist. Everything they claim to do can be done with Bitcoin by itself.
Look, there's nothing wrong with harvesting money from digital rubes. But let's not fool ourselves into believing what's going on has anything to do with turning the world into a digital Chuck E Cheese.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
As for NFTs they are little more than OP_RETURN, which has been part of Bitcoin since 2014.
There's this persistent and incredibly ignorant view out there that Ethereum's contracts are "smart" and Bitcoin, well, it doesn't do smart contracts. Even a cursory glance at the link shows this is not true.
>incredibly ignorant
I don't think it's ignorant at all. Over-emphasizing BTC smart contracts in my opinion is pedantic. Where is BTC Defi? That is a multi hundred billion-$ industry in terms of value locked in contracts. If BTC doesn't have the equivalent, then its "smart contract" capabilities are not equivalent. Simple as that.
Yes there is. I won't go so far as to say it's stealing, but for smart people who could be using their talents to build something actually valuable it's at least a misallocation of resources.
I'd suggest the end goal is to create value, not simply make as much money as possible.
Can you hold stable coins on BTC? How about lending them for yield? Depositing into pools/vaults that aggregate yield, harvest farmed coins, and other strategies?
How about taking the LP tokens from above, and borrowing against them to increase capital efficiency, even in some cases achieving self-paying loans from the yield derived from the LP tokens [0]?
[0] https://abracadabra.money/
To say BTC can "do all of this" is absurd. Where is it? Who cares if the "can do" is theoretical at best. In practice, the amount of things you can do with ETH and similar dwarf what is available with BTC. BTC is a great finite store of value. But why pretend it does things it doesn't actually do? Why over-state it's capabilities in comparison to other cryptocurrencies?
To me it was just yesterday that the idea of that curated list of web links called Yahoo seemed neat, ebay is some social experiment from across the bay, and then this ugly looking Google kid comes in and blows everyone away with actual relevant search results. Or those SMS messages from that SMS service Twitter or finding old friends on friendster... I can't recall any recent high impact "new thing" except maybe crypto.
Uber is literally life-changing. Remember needing to call people and ask them for a ride when something unexpected happened?
> I cannot begin to understand what it's like for a 20 year old to have been born in a world where Google is already established, Social networks are mainstream, and Amazon is our all encompassing commerce overlords.
20-year-olds have had life-changing technology adopted around them multiple times. It's just not on your radar because you weren't 10 years old in 2011.
Roblox, Minecraft, and Fortnite are examples. As people are saying: the metaverse already exists to some extent, and young people have been living in it daily since they were small children.
I might be only 26 years old, but even I have memories of my parents easily flagging down taxis in Manhattan. More convenient? Absolutely. "Literally life changing" seems a bit much, though.
Where I live, the only form of non-personal (your own car or bike) transport was the bus, which comes by 5 times a day, only once on saturdays, and never on sundays. Uber and its local equivalents have allowed me to participate in social events that the long and restrictive bus rides would not allow, and which taxis would be too much of a luxury.
I think that for me it is fair to say it was life-changing. Maybe not as life-changing as other things, but if it wasn't for this kind of service, I wouldn't have some of my best friends.
In New Orleans, when you wanted to get a ride home from a bar, you'd need to try calling taxi services for 30+ minutes, because most of them didn't answer, or their lines were busy. If you got in contact with one, you'd need to wait 30+ minutes for them to show up, if they ever did.
In San Francisco, when the bars would let out, none of the services answered their phones. You'd have to stand outside and try to flag one down, and most of the time they'd roll their window down and ask where you're going, and decide whether or not they want to take you. You could easily spend an hour outside waiting for a taxi.
As someone from Manhattan, you live(d) one of the most unusual existences in human history.
And maybe you have lived places where this wouldn't mean anything to you, but you couldn't do this in most of the US before Uber.
Even in some well-known cities, your chances of getting a cab in < 30 min (if you could get one at all) were close to zero. There wasn't a single number to call -- you had to call many numbers and hope someone actually showed up. You couldn't track progress.
Where I grew up, my parents couldn't even get to the airport without asking a relative (and this is the biggest city in our home state).
A functioning, 24/7, predictable taxi system was absolutely not available in most of the US before Uber.
I find this quite surprising. I've lived in 3 countries (including the US but limited to San Francisco) and calling a cab was always a reliable thing. I know my scope of experience is still limited, but Uber being the silver bullet of taxies seems to me like an overstatement. They are great, I like them, but to me they are just a better version of something else, most times. At least that statement explains more their level of success.
I think the underlying direction is the right way, I just really dislike how it moves more towards more capital and commerce focused than social good.
I can still remember pretty well my life before I was always connected. My earlier life was quieter, calmer. I have fun memories of my old Nokia 5800 :)
I am not sure I live modern technology that much different than older people. Just like many people grew up with home appliances or cars being the norm.
I'm not talking about filling it up with useless or silly content though, running a Chia node will cause a hard drive to fail after a very short time. This isn't due to any legitimate usage for storing content, it results from how they implement proof of space. It's been a while since I read about this in-depth, but basically it amounts to having the nodes fill the drive with junk data and then prove they're participating by regurgitating some section of that data on request. Then on successive blocks, it gets rewritten with new data.
The irony is, I believe this was intended to address the environmental concerns of proof of work mining, and perhaps it does. But turning hard drives which require resources to create, into landfill, isn't really environmentally friendly either.
edit: To clarify, I'm not judging people using or participating in the Chia network (many participants apparently didn't even know it would destroy their hard drives). I am judging Chia's consensus mechanism for being wasteful however.
"Plotting" is the act of filling the hard drive with the random data. It only needs to be done once, after which the data can be used to "farm" indefinitely.
Farming is very low on energy requirements and doesn't damage the drives.
Plotting can be accelerated by doing it on a fast SSD, and transferring the plot data on large capacity HDDs for farming. This saves time at the cost of writing a lot of data on the dedicated plotting SSD, which trashes consumer grades SSDs if done continuously.
Plotting can also be done on the HDDs themselves. It's slower but won't noticeably reduce the HDD's lifespan.
When Chia was launched, there was a lot of speculation and farmers were competing to be first to finish as many plots as possible, so most were plotting on SSDs, and many on consumer SSDs. That's were the "Chia destroys hard drives" myth came from.
If it works how I think it works, then I can pay a one time fee to host my application, migrate the few APIs that my next.js app is using to be purely onchain Solana programs, then figure out some DNS solution to point it to the right place, and then I don't have to pay monthly hosting, and users can be sure that the value my app provides won't be taken down because I decided to no longer pay for hosting.
It's all theory at least for me right now, but I think it is possible.
- Residential Internet connections are asymmetrical. That's a problem and renders many clients as leeches.
- It is unreliable for long tail files. If a file is never read, it will never be replicated and will eventually disappear.
- Once the universities started cracking down on BitTorrent usage, it was game over. Dorms were practically the CDNs of the torrent world.
It's also way more efficient to use CDNs. I doubt the internet has the bandwidth for a decentralized Youtube.
Imagine (granted, a ideal world and maybe not actually possible) a world where every routes and computer is a node that both serves and receives data. Suddenly, your ISP can start to aggressively serve traffic from their edge-nodes. If a video goes viral, your local network can fetch it directly from your neighbors network instead of reaching out to the internet to fetch it. We'll be reducing the traffic massively.
But yes, it's a ideal world and probably not possible to execute in reality as the market forces behind paying for bandwidth is so strong.
My understanding is that Hypercore is the successor to dat and also operates along similar lines, but I'll admit that the details are over my head. https://hypercore-protocol.org/
Beaker Browser originally built on top of dat, underwent a significant rewrite and now uses Hypercore instead. https://beakerbrowser.com/
Web 2.0, while nebulous, is reasonably defined as "the web as an application platform". Web 1.0 is for documents; static. Web 2.0 couldn't exist without 1.0; it took HTML, CSS, added JavaScript (well, argue the term "added", its nebulous, we're speaking in broad terms), and "evolved" it (or "devolved" depending on who you ask) to support much deeper user interaction and productivity.
Moreover; Web 1.0 is still right here. It didn't go anywhere. Its as easy as its always been to publish a static site with just HTML.
Anyone on the Web3 side who argues "P2P or Nothing" is, frankly, just as pointless as someone on the other side who says "haha, all your marketing is on Web2 Twitter, you people can't even build a social network!". Its not a zero sum game, despite what the semver naming scheme asserts (and let's be fair: Web2 started it! Web3 just adopted their inaccuracy).
Really love a lot of the other points made here, though. Lots of things to ponder over.
> The money thing confounds evaluation; it’s like trying to look at a star next to the sun [...] would you still be curious about Web3 if those currencies were worthless, in dollar terms? [...] The Ethereum Virtual Machine, humming heart of Web3, is a computer that charges you many dollars to execute a very small program very slowly. [...] They were about other things — science and coffee pots, links and camera lenses — while Web3 is, to a first approximation, about Web3.
I think a lot about sort-of the thrust of all these points. Web3/ETH/etc are super interesting from a technical angle, but what "real" work are they accomplishing? First thing people point to: DeFi. But that's self-referential, as he says, and moreover, finance sucks; its important, but its fake. Where's the real productivity in Web3? Well, the Second thing; ETH VM, which is a joke.
NFTs feel like a "third" large use-case of Web3, and could be the first interesting one, as a way to create digital scarcity. I'm not sure if its good or bad, but it is, at least, Natural, and Interesting. But its still self-referential and rooted in finance.
Point being, I think I would be far, far more interested in Web3 if it actually wasn't so mired in finance. I love his wording: its like trying to look at a [planet] next to the sun. But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't exist without its roots in finance; that's how you get people interested.
That's a really, really good point. Web1 has become commoditized and thus invisible. Web2 might follow a similar path.
It's here to stay, NFT opened the floodgates and in 10 after the usual crashes and bull market runs, everyone will be integrated onto the blockchain one way or another.
That is the best explanation of Web3, it is like one of those Reddit April's folks events, just a social game.
It’s been almost 15 years, you’re getting left behind.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://www.notboring.co/p/the-great-online-game
I think it captures a lot of the current culture with crypto and NFTs. A lot of it reminds me of when reality TV began. Suddenly we had a new class of celebrities who weren't singers or actors. Reality TV stars, famous people whose claim to fame was being famous.
Circular logic. Positive fedback loops. You should "invest" in this NFT collection because look at how many other people are buying this NFT collection.
Web3 is more than speculative NFTs and I expect we'll see some important things come out of it, just with a lot of surprises and broken expectations along the way.
Like... what?
As disclosure, I don't own more than 500usd in crypto (which I mined at a much lower price), don't have a trading account anywhere and have never speculated on it.
However, the reason web3 excites me is this. Imagine the web, but there's a value exchange mechanism built in (a payment system if that helps your imagination).
I see a lot of frontier tech wild west stuff going on and that's fine. Let's not look at the trees here. There have a been a lot of web 1 and 2 approaches that are no longer. But things like braves attention token to relpace the advertisement model and micro transactions for supporting pages directly.
On chain tools which do away with backends, payment processors, account management etc
NFTs as true assets. Currently the closest thing to a digital asset that we have is an email account that we don't want to have blocked or lose.
Now you have people with 5000$ NFTs that they have a level of attachment to and can use as collateral.
They seem silly now, but it meets the definition of a digital asset. And that will help grow a network of tools that use them.
One example, you put your NFT up as collateral for a DeFi loan, you don't pay it back by the time given, a smart contract repos your NFT.
Obviously this is a lot of speculation and opinion, how it all plays out is not going to be and already hasn't been a smooth ride. However, it's bringing a lot of innovation very rapidly.
And one last thing for the sceptics, try to remember that crypto doesn't solve technical problems, it solves problems at a societal level.
Let's test that with ransomware - how does it solve that societal problem?
Right now there is little cost to doing bad things on the internet.
But the point is a little different.
Crypto solves among others the problem of technology moving faster than legislation in ways that can't be tampered with.
That's the big innovation of bitcoin. Someone created a store of value system and threw away the keys to the engine room which means it can't be tampered with by rough actors.
In the same way web3 doesn't solve every problem there is on web2 and web2 doesn't create every problem web3 tries to solve.
It seems to me like it does the opposite. It takes the problems rampant in society thanks to capitalism and moves them into the digital space, with no real benefit.
Data has the advantage of almost free replication, a lack of scarcity that might finally allow us to move forward as a society, allowing culture to be shared freely between free people. Instead crypto folks, blinded by their ideology, try their best to remove that advantage so they can make it just another capitalist asset to be traded.
And that's not all - the price we pay for their attempts to keep shackling culture to capitalism is the destruction of our climate and acceleration towards the apocalypse.