6 ms·

I find it so difficult to understand why there isn't a greater focus on first-principle approach to the web3 discussion, and wonder if perhaps the reason is tha

I find it so difficult to understand why there isn't a greater focus on first-principle approach to the web3 discussion, and wonder if perhaps the reason is that few people can make a cogent argument for their pet project/coin/DAO/etc. on those principles. All the inefficiencies aside (for now, although ultimately they'd need to be addressed), the notion that you can create a public ledger that can be trusted without a single centralized authority DOES seem like a really interesting innovation. Just go ask some of my family members who lived overseas under regimes of hyperinflation just how valuable the idea that you could have a currency that no one controls is. But NBA TopShot? CNN clip ownerships? It seems to boggle my mind how that is related... AT ALL... to this potentially new property afforded by blockchains. Over centuries it seems we have evolved institutions, laws, etc., PRIMARILY to address this issue of trust. But rather than seeing web3 projects that seem to tackle issues where does institutions have failed, it seems everywhere I turn is just someone doing something that can be accomplished the good ol' fashion way but adding a crypto element to it because of the hype/FOMO/etc. I mean, take the topshop example... could the NBA really not have done that with just.... yknow... a database?!?!?

liotier 5y ago
> Just go ask some of my family members who lived overseas under regimes of hyperinflation just how valuable the idea that you could have a currency that no one controls is. They buy USD or EUR on the grey market. Buying BTC doesn't satisfy this use-case any better - except for remote transactions, for which only hawala is more efficient.
- RestlessMind 5y ago
  BTC allows their families overseas to easily transfer funds which is not that easy with USD or EUR. > for which only hawala is more efficient Hawala + bitcoin is as much or more efficient than Hawala + USD.
leppr 5y ago
There's crypto and then there's crypto grifters. Most of these projects have a crypto "theme", they're not "crypto" themselves. The central bank monetary policies of the past years have favored mindless investment, which allowed a flurry of projects to get outsized funding by sprinkling crypto pixie dust to get investments (just like so many did previously with "ML"). These 9-10 figure valuations don't bring them actual legitimacy from crypto people. This doesn't make them "crypto". A custodian exchange trading cryptocoins is not crypto, a custodian wallet helping celebrities buy NFTs is not crypto, a seller of collectible cards on a centralized DB like Flow that you can eventually maybe transfer to an actual decentralized network is not crypto. (same comment with "web3" instead of "crypto")
- ehnto 5y ago
  > These 9-10 figure valuations don't bring them actual legitimacy from crypto people. A project having VC from makes me require a bit more validation of it's value add if anything. If a project is gaining steam on it's own account, it's much easier to believe it has some real world value. Convincing some deep pockets that your Decentralized ML Crypto Neural Net Bath Soap Dispenser is worth investing in doesn't seem too hard at the moment.
fabian2k 5y ago
Even then I personally don't really see how this is useful in practice. Of course an immutable and verifiable ledger sounds interesting, but the problem is the connection to the real world. The moment I want to use this ledger to prove anything about the real world I need some kind of trusted authority again to enforce or validate my claim. And in that case a plain old database would work better.
- deet 5y ago
  Indeed. I've always wanted to know "Okay, so if we record real property ownership on a blockchain, and someone trespasses in my house, who do I call?" If the answer is "the police", I'm not really sure what having the blockchain gets us, if anything at all. Recording changes at the county recorder is easy and cheap enough already, so what's the point?
  - d0gbread 5y ago
    Can you explain why proof of ownership has anything to do with enforcement of that proof? We don't call the county recorder for trespassing.
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      Because existence of a trusted authority means that there's no need to shoulder the immense costs of full decentralization. The fact that you can call someone is the relevant point, not the details of who you call. Blockchain only makes sense to use if two parties (1) do not trust each other, (2) do not have some mutually trusted authority, and (3) have no set of N partially trusted authorities whose shared authority they would each trust. In any other circumstances, there exists a more efficient method to establish consensus. In the case of calling the police, it establishes that there exists a trusted authority, breaking condition (2).
    - deet 5y ago
      Because the concept of "ownership" doesn't really mean anything unless it can be enforced. What's the point of owning a house if you can't live in it because someone else is squatting in it? Since there doesn't seem to be a way to decentralize the enforcement of real property ownership (as enforcement could involve violence, which the state has a monopoly on given our current social contracts), we're stuck with centralization in at least one component of the "ownership-enforcement" pair... So then what's the point of decentralization at all?

liotier 5y ago

> Just go ask some of my family members who lived overseas under regimes of hyperinflation just how valuable the idea that you could have a currency that no one controls is. They buy USD or EUR on the grey market. Buying BTC doesn't satisfy this use-case any better - except for remote transactions, for which only hawala is more efficient.

RestlessMind 5y ago
BTC allows their families overseas to easily transfer funds which is not that easy with USD or EUR. > for which only hawala is more efficient Hawala + bitcoin is as much or more efficient than Hawala + USD.

leppr 5y ago

There's crypto and then there's crypto grifters. Most of these projects have a crypto "theme", they're not "crypto" themselves. The central bank monetary policies of the past years have favored mindless investment, which allowed a flurry of projects to get outsized funding by sprinkling crypto pixie dust to get investments (just like so many did previously with "ML"). These 9-10 figure valuations don't bring them actual legitimacy from crypto people. This doesn't make them "crypto". A custodian exchange trading cryptocoins is not crypto, a custodian wallet helping celebrities buy NFTs is not crypto, a seller of collectible cards on a centralized DB like Flow that you can eventually maybe transfer to an actual decentralized network is not crypto. (same comment with "web3" instead of "crypto")

ehnto 5y ago
> These 9-10 figure valuations don't bring them actual legitimacy from crypto people. A project having VC from makes me require a bit more validation of it's value add if anything. If a project is gaining steam on it's own account, it's much easier to believe it has some real world value. Convincing some deep pockets that your Decentralized ML Crypto Neural Net Bath Soap Dispenser is worth investing in doesn't seem too hard at the moment.

fabian2k 5y ago

Even then I personally don't really see how this is useful in practice. Of course an immutable and verifiable ledger sounds interesting, but the problem is the connection to the real world. The moment I want to use this ledger to prove anything about the real world I need some kind of trusted authority again to enforce or validate my claim. And in that case a plain old database would work better.

deet 5y ago
Indeed. I've always wanted to know "Okay, so if we record real property ownership on a blockchain, and someone trespasses in my house, who do I call?" If the answer is "the police", I'm not really sure what having the blockchain gets us, if anything at all. Recording changes at the county recorder is easy and cheap enough already, so what's the point?
- d0gbread 5y ago
  Can you explain why proof of ownership has anything to do with enforcement of that proof? We don't call the county recorder for trespassing.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    Because existence of a trusted authority means that there's no need to shoulder the immense costs of full decentralization. The fact that you can call someone is the relevant point, not the details of who you call. Blockchain only makes sense to use if two parties (1) do not trust each other, (2) do not have some mutually trusted authority, and (3) have no set of N partially trusted authorities whose shared authority they would each trust. In any other circumstances, there exists a more efficient method to establish consensus. In the case of calling the police, it establishes that there exists a trusted authority, breaking condition (2).
  - deet 5y ago
    Because the concept of "ownership" doesn't really mean anything unless it can be enforced. What's the point of owning a house if you can't live in it because someone else is squatting in it? Since there doesn't seem to be a way to decentralize the enforcement of real property ownership (as enforcement could involve violence, which the state has a monopoly on given our current social contracts), we're stuck with centralization in at least one component of the "ownership-enforcement" pair... So then what's the point of decentralization at all?