3 ms·

> When (now Sir) Tim Berners-Lee invented the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) he unleashed what we now think of as permissionless publishing. 1. Retconning

> When (now Sir) Tim Berners-Lee invented the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) he unleashed what we now think of as permissionless publishing. 1. Retconning 2. As always, web3 and crypto is the next WWW, and the next Internet, and the next car, and the next wheel. Even though literally all signs are pointing to it being the next Juicero or the next Enron. > We also need permissionless data. Why do we need this? Because otherwise we are left with a few large corporations ... We of course know where this winds up and that’s why pretty much everyone hates their cable company and their electric utility. That's quite a logic leap. We need permissionless data because that's why everyone hates their cable company. > prior to the Bitcoin Paper we literally didn’t know how to have permissionless. 1. We did. 2. Retconning yet again. Bticoin paper is literally this: --- start quote --- A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. --- end quote --- The etire paper mentions permissions or permissionless exactly zero times. > It is difficult to overstate how big an innovation this is. Yes, you have. Yoi have just significantly overstated how big it is. > As such Web3 can, if properly developed and with the right kind of regulation, provide Ah yes, regulations. Which, if I remember from just a few paragraphs above "then leads us to all sort of regulatory contortions aimed at rectifying the power imbalance but in practice mostly cementing it. " > And if widely adopted Web3/crypto technology will also start to improve along other dimensions. It will become faster and more efficient. And that will surely happen just because you say it will happen. Also because innovation I guess? > And much like the PC was a platform for innovation that never happened on mainframes or mini computers, Web3 will be a platform for innovation that would never come from Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. Innovation never came from Juicero either. Somehow, your web3 is surely the next Internet, and not the myriad of failed "innovations".

Ygg2 5y ago
To add to the list of complaints. > No single entity or small group of entities controls it In practice they will. The moment +50% of miners agrees on any transaction, regardless of it happening - it will happen. So having +50% of Bitcoin miners means you control the Bitcoin market. And we're back to square one. Edit: Fine they only control current transactions, but forking as a solution to this implies the current network won't be able to just join and takeover a new bitcoin fork. Which is highly suspect.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  There's also the case of many "scalable protocols to fix blockchains" relying on people with a lot of cash to run the nodes. And things like DAOs replacing "single entities or small group of entities" with the rule of the mob, which is just as scary.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  This is inaccurate, especially in the case of Bitcoin where the blockchain is relatively small (around 300-400gbs). Hash majority has zero influence on transaction validity. Invalid transactions are never accepted by the vanilla software, and those running nodes have no reason to accept them. Even if 99% of the network accepts an invalid transaction, the network will simply fork into an obviously invalid state and a valid state. Users will simply choose the one without foul play, and the majority of Bitcoin holders, even those who don't run nodes, will know which fork is valid and simply price the invalid fork at $0. You are confusing a 51% attack, or a block re-org attack, with complete control over the network, which it does not grant.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    So? They would be able to double spend and control any future transacations. At that point. Blockchain reinvented Bank with extra steps, that emits enough CO2 to replace Sweden.
    - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
      So what if you are incorrect? Is that what you mean to say? What about double spending allows miners to control all future transactions afterwards? Double spending is of course undesirable but its hard to imagine its profitable to organize such an attack when it immediately begins burning money once word gets out, and if it didn't it would devalue the miners' own infrastructure when people lose faith in the currency. You can dream up many a scheme where it can happen, and renting hash is certainly a problem down the road for many coins, but you're exaggerated presentation of the 51% attack is clearly flawed and stemming from your simple understanding how the network reaches consensus.

Ygg2 5y ago

To add to the list of complaints. > No single entity or small group of entities controls it In practice they will. The moment +50% of miners agrees on any transaction, regardless of it happening - it will happen. So having +50% of Bitcoin miners means you control the Bitcoin market. And we're back to square one. Edit: Fine they only control current transactions, but forking as a solution to this implies the current network won't be able to just join and takeover a new bitcoin fork. Which is highly suspect.

dmitriid 5y ago
There's also the case of many "scalable protocols to fix blockchains" relying on people with a lot of cash to run the nodes. And things like DAOs replacing "single entities or small group of entities" with the rule of the mob, which is just as scary.
mattwilsonn888 5y ago
This is inaccurate, especially in the case of Bitcoin where the blockchain is relatively small (around 300-400gbs). Hash majority has zero influence on transaction validity. Invalid transactions are never accepted by the vanilla software, and those running nodes have no reason to accept them. Even if 99% of the network accepts an invalid transaction, the network will simply fork into an obviously invalid state and a valid state. Users will simply choose the one without foul play, and the majority of Bitcoin holders, even those who don't run nodes, will know which fork is valid and simply price the invalid fork at $0. You are confusing a 51% attack, or a block re-org attack, with complete control over the network, which it does not grant.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  So? They would be able to double spend and control any future transacations. At that point. Blockchain reinvented Bank with extra steps, that emits enough CO2 to replace Sweden.
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    So what if you are incorrect? Is that what you mean to say? What about double spending allows miners to control all future transactions afterwards? Double spending is of course undesirable but its hard to imagine its profitable to organize such an attack when it immediately begins burning money once word gets out, and if it didn't it would devalue the miners' own infrastructure when people lose faith in the currency. You can dream up many a scheme where it can happen, and renting hash is certainly a problem down the road for many coins, but you're exaggerated presentation of the 51% attack is clearly flawed and stemming from your simple understanding how the network reaches consensus.