5 ms·

I think this is a pretty weak article regarding web3. The author wants to claim Ethereum or Bitcoin are more centralized than HTTP, but that isn't a valid compa

I think this is a pretty weak article regarding web3. The author wants to claim Ethereum or Bitcoin are more centralized than HTTP, but that isn't a valid comparison. Anyone can spin up their own blockchain exactly in the same fashion of spinning up their own webserver. It's more comparable to something like AWS or Discord or Twitter. Now, I would still say the majority of all things developed on the blockchain are very centralized, from DAOs to NFTs to dApps. And I definitely agree that it's because they're mostly all cash grabs. But the articles being published every day criticizing the web3 world recently have been pretty terrible imo.

Findeton 5y ago
I recommend looking into BSV, as you can store data on-chain for cents, but it looks like any comment mentioning it will get automatically moderated for some reason.
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  Ahh the blockchain created by the fraudster claiming to be Satoshi.
  - Findeton 5y ago
    Sure but have you looked into the technology?
    - lpcvoid 5y ago
      There is absolutely nothing worth looking at with regards to cryptocurrency/blockchain junk.
    - pcthrowaway 5y ago
      It's not bad, but it's proof of work which I'm not really interested in at this point.
Findeton 5y ago
Also you can use BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) to store the whole images on-chain, literally for cents on the dollar. And yes, BSV also has smart contracts, just like the original Bitcoin did. 53% of all transactions happen in BSV, more than Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP together: https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html
- ur-whale 5y ago
  You've somehow managed to bring up the probably unique topic (utter contempt for Craig Wright) that squarely unites crypto-lovers (because they know him to be the worst kind of scammer) and crypto-haters (who believe Wright to be canonically representative of the entire space). That's quite a feat, but I somehow doubt you'll get upvoted much.
- FabHK 5y ago
  Fwiw, cents on the dollar = a few percent = very expensive for financial transactions (that’s a PayPal level ripoff).
cormacrelf 5y ago
Yes, and it will be incredibly insecure unless you either convince a ton of other people to spin up nodes and act honestly in concert with you to run your network, or you build it atop Ethereum etc. Almost the only way to spin up your own is to come up with a world-changing idea, write a whitepaper and sell it to VC. So realistically people build atop Ethereum etc, and that still takes VC money because getting anything done on the famed World Computer is like booking time on a mainframe in 1976. You don't need VC money to boot up your own HTTPS server on a traditional stack. There are lots of ways in which traditional stacks are not very censorship-resistant, and there are many ways to improve it. But at least anyone can participate on their own terms without having to either write a pitch deck and get funded, or accede to majority rule over some really important parameters of how their network operates. VC money alone is a much more pernicious influence on what will be acceptable behaviour than installing Nginx. The money required is just as heavy censorship as having to go through Visa to accept payments. If you think "but what about email? Isn't it prohibitively expensive to run your own email server securely?", then you have fully understood the point about blockchains actually facing the same pattern of centralisation that the rest of the web does, but worse, because the alternative (your own big enough, secure enough chain) is comparatively even more difficult to adopt than the mainstream (Eth). You don't need ten million dollars and your own cryptographers and formal verification specialists to write or run an HTTP server, IMAP server, or IP network. Each of which you can do exactly as you please, essentially nobody else dictating how you do it and with costs at the bare minimum, and all of these interoperate with other people's just fine. If you want an example of a "web3" technology that's not subject to these arguments, just look at IPFS. It's just a bunch of 20-year old ideas combined (bittorrent-esque peer discovery, mixnet routing, content-addressed blob hashes in git). None of the above problems are any worse than they are in Web 2.0, and it is leaps and bounds more censorship-resistant. You could plug in a permanent node or two today, subscribe it to a stream of authenticated tree hashes, and use it as your personal dropbox. If more people used it, you could just publish web pages there, by dragging and dropping a folder. If you have another technology that you think is a Web3 candidate, please compare it to that.

Findeton 5y ago

I recommend looking into BSV, as you can store data on-chain for cents, but it looks like any comment mentioning it will get automatically moderated for some reason.

pcthrowaway 5y ago
Ahh the blockchain created by the fraudster claiming to be Satoshi.
- Findeton 5y ago
  Sure but have you looked into the technology?
  - lpcvoid 5y ago
    There is absolutely nothing worth looking at with regards to cryptocurrency/blockchain junk.
  - pcthrowaway 5y ago
    It's not bad, but it's proof of work which I'm not really interested in at this point.

Findeton 5y ago

Also you can use BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) to store the whole images on-chain, literally for cents on the dollar. And yes, BSV also has smart contracts, just like the original Bitcoin did. 53% of all transactions happen in BSV, more than Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP together: https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html

ur-whale 5y ago
You've somehow managed to bring up the probably unique topic (utter contempt for Craig Wright) that squarely unites crypto-lovers (because they know him to be the worst kind of scammer) and crypto-haters (who believe Wright to be canonically representative of the entire space). That's quite a feat, but I somehow doubt you'll get upvoted much.
FabHK 5y ago
Fwiw, cents on the dollar = a few percent = very expensive for financial transactions (that’s a PayPal level ripoff).

cormacrelf 5y ago

Yes, and it will be incredibly insecure unless you either convince a ton of other people to spin up nodes and act honestly in concert with you to run your network, or you build it atop Ethereum etc. Almost the only way to spin up your own is to come up with a world-changing idea, write a whitepaper and sell it to VC. So realistically people build atop Ethereum etc, and that still takes VC money because getting anything done on the famed World Computer is like booking time on a mainframe in 1976. You don't need VC money to boot up your own HTTPS server on a traditional stack. There are lots of ways in which traditional stacks are not very censorship-resistant, and there are many ways to improve it. But at least anyone can participate on their own terms without having to either write a pitch deck and get funded, or accede to majority rule over some really important parameters of how their network operates. VC money alone is a much more pernicious influence on what will be acceptable behaviour than installing Nginx. The money required is just as heavy censorship as having to go through Visa to accept payments. If you think "but what about email? Isn't it prohibitively expensive to run your own email server securely?", then you have fully understood the point about blockchains actually facing the same pattern of centralisation that the rest of the web does, but worse, because the alternative (your own big enough, secure enough chain) is comparatively even more difficult to adopt than the mainstream (Eth). You don't need ten million dollars and your own cryptographers and formal verification specialists to write or run an HTTP server, IMAP server, or IP network. Each of which you can do exactly as you please, essentially nobody else dictating how you do it and with costs at the bare minimum, and all of these interoperate with other people's just fine. If you want an example of a "web3" technology that's not subject to these arguments, just look at IPFS. It's just a bunch of 20-year old ideas combined (bittorrent-esque peer discovery, mixnet routing, content-addressed blob hashes in git). None of the above problems are any worse than they are in Web 2.0, and it is leaps and bounds more censorship-resistant. You could plug in a permanent node or two today, subscribe it to a stream of authenticated tree hashes, and use it as your personal dropbox. If more people used it, you could just publish web pages there, by dragging and dropping a folder. If you have another technology that you think is a Web3 candidate, please compare it to that.