7 ms·

Ask HN: What if a new generation of developers is right about Web3?

• bitcoinmonger2 5y ago
  Web3 is a fraud. There are no intelligent people working in this space. It is a giant Ponzi scheme run by tech bros who have no material experience working for major companies or corporations. The sooner it fails the better.
• ericfrazier 5y ago
  The early crypto holders and their families will become the new 1%. They will cloak their wealth and power behind god and government and keep this whole thing going. What is past is prologue.
• coolgeek 5y ago
  This isn't a question. It's an argument disguised as a series of questions. Nevertheless, the answer to the title's question is: we'll all be living in abject poverty while you're yelling "told you so"
  • labrador 5y ago
    Shout out to the ghost of Socrates
• dags156 5y ago
  What if the guy trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge is actually trying to give me a really good deal?
  • labrador 5y ago
    People make good money investing in bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bridge_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bridge_Company
• jacobmischka 5y ago
  How does rambling garbage like this with no information keep getting to the front page lately, what is happening? Edit: Currently second page, my mistake.
  • labrador 5y ago
    One person's trash is another person's treasure
• throwaheyy 5y ago
  Nope it’s just trading one set of gatekeepers for another. The new gatekeepers are also much less honest about their being gatekeepers.
  • pupppet 5y ago
    Exactly. I’ll take my regulated bank over Jack Dorsey.
    • coinward 5y ago
      you seem confused, jack left twitter to focus on squareblock's shift toward bitcoin, not web3 scams
• labrador 5y ago
  Related: "The peer-to-peer decentralised world we see unfolding is a result of the relentless dedication of a group of builders, mathematicians, misfits, and hackers. They’ve built over generations, and now the baton has been passed to us. #web3 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482321213045489668.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482321213045489668.html
• tpetry 5y ago
  What if this new generation is just repeating the mistakes of former generations? They talk about decentralization which has been done so often before and only worked for niche use-cases. What if crypto is just a big money pump and dump scheme? It‘s sold to the poor to solve their financial situation which mostly don‘t have bank accounts. But the ones loosing the most in crypto crashes is not the new-generation web3 developer earning a good income. It‘s the poor guy somewhere with a bad local currency which was now using crypto which is now not worth anything too. —- People are always repeating that many people didn‘t e.g. saw the need in the internet and had been totally wrong in it. But crypto isn‘t new anymore like the internet was at that time! Bitcoin is almost 13 years old and Etherum 6! The internet had already shown very good usecases after that time and crypto is still searching for it‘s _one_ use case than money speculation on a highly volatile asset which doesn‘t have any real money. More interesting what will happen to crypto in a real world economy crash like 2008!
  • thebean11 5y ago
    > They talk about decentralization which has been done so often before What’s an example from earlier generations?
    • tpetry 5y ago
      Diaspora and Mastodon. These are the prime example what the web 3 generation wants: no central company, everyone runs it‘s own server, user is in control of all it‘s data And they are a total empty space. Because it‘s complex to use ans is missing the network effect which is really really hard to get without a central company doing marketing in some form
      • thebean11 5y ago
        Got it I see what you mean. In my mind though, the real innovation in web3 is native ability to move money around, and turing complete (ish) programmability. Comparisons to social networks seems like apples and oranges. It’s not a product that needs to be marketed to end users. Think AWS not Amazon.com. The people building products on it will do the marketing.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• kerneloftruth 5y ago
  A general rule I've found to be very true is: if you can't explain a concept to somebody else fully, clearly, and concisely -- then you don't _really_ understand the concept yourself (i.e. if you can't explain it to a 5 year old, then you don't really understand it). "Imagine ... that they're not very good at articulating what the intuitively feel to be right about web3. When they talk about decentralization it much less about technology than routing around the central locus of control that serve as gatekeepers to keep people down." And this describes exactly people who haven't really thought through the web3 concept -- especially indicated by the emotional perspectives of "feels rights" that the status quo is filled with "gatekeepers to keep people down". This makes it seem like a trend amongst the cool kids, which to me is what it actually is at this point.
  • labrador 5y ago
    I assosciate your rule with Richard Feynman [1] but I'm trying to strip away the hustle and hype to get to something true at the core that may be worth looking at. There was a lot of b.s. in the late 90's but turns out there were acorns of good ideas there waiting to grow into mighty oaks. I'd hate to be an old codger yelling at kids to get off my lawn. It's not a good way to live. [1] https://morksensei.com/learning-deeply-by-explaining-the-feynman-technique https://morksensei.com/learning-deeply-by-explaining-the-fey...
• VictorPath 5y ago
  > routing around the central locus of control that serve as gatekeepers to keep people down Huh? Routing around? You are advocating for the "central locus of control that serve as gatekeepers to keep people down". You don't eliminate that by "routing around" it. You eliminate it by organization, education and then agitation around it. Advocating that people unhappy with this scurry about trying to "route around" their central locus of control is exactly what they want.
  • labrador 5y ago
    I remember when you couldn't hook anything up to your phone line with permission from AT&T, which we not so affectionally called Ma Bell. How'd that work out for them?
• ipnon 5y ago
  Crypto is growing twice as fast as the Internet grew in the late 90's.[0] Let's assume history rhymes. There will be a massive crash in a few years time. Everyone will say "I told you so." Then all the crypto kids will be laughing to the DEX as the world catches up to them in the next two decades. What if blockchains are the best way to conduct personal finance? Digital and physical ownership? What if blockchains are the best way to conduct Big Finance? That's quite a large market, maybe even the largest market there is to conduct. Wouldn't crypto naturally be adopted then? The comparative advantage would make it a "no brainer." It seems to me stranger that we would live in a world where the business of money was perfected in the late 20th century. Do you really think bank transfers are going to take 2 days to clear in the year 2100? [0] https://jjo.media/articles/cryptocurrency-vs-internet-adoption https://jjo.media/articles/cryptocurrency-vs-internet-adopti...
  • labrador 5y ago
    Things that make me pause. One of the loudest web3 critics is Stephen Deihl, who works on a private blockchain in London, presumably for traditional financiers. He doesn't advertise this. Why all the hate for work done by the new generation? Does he see them as the barbarians at the gate? https://twitter.com/dystopiabreaker/status/1470126927818067969 https://twitter.com/dystopiabreaker/status/14701269278180679...
• pictur 5y ago
  "web3 is an attempt to decentralize and democratize finance and business." this is a utopian dream. The current state of the web3 dotcom bubble is anything but.
  • labrador 5y ago
    Perhaps it might help to look where it's going, not where it is
• yummypaint 5y ago
  My experience with traditional stock trading has been a $5 flat fee per trade, with no other expenses. In contrast just sending someone some bitcoin, the equivalent of handing a person cash, can easily cost over $10. Not to mention the rampant outright criminality and fraud taking place on crypto exchanges. If an actor who isn't regulated as a bank tries to sell you banking services, be extremely wary.
• unmole 5y ago
  Using Ask HN to post a content-free rant just seems wrong to me.
  • labrador 5y ago
    I trust dang will delete it if my post violates the HN rules. I've saved a copy of this thread just in case.
• cdrini 5y ago
  Note: not super versed in this space. My main info is from a Johnny Harris video where he debates himself on the subject of crypto. And I've looked into the tech a bit. I don't think I follow how crypto would help in your situation. At least your father could get a loan from the bank--and he got that loan because the bank looked at his history, trusted him, and took a bet he would succeed. And he can trust the bank, because it has authority and governmental checks and balances to hold it accountable. There is no trust in crypto as far as I understand it. In fact being trust-less is one of the designing principles of the block chain. Can loans exist in crypto? Wouldn't this be significantly more difficult for someone like your father to break into? And significantly more risk-y? Whereas he could get a loan from a bank with relatively little financial investment and risk, how much time & money would he need to invest in a cryptocurrency before he has enough to do what he wants with the finances? What's the risk? Sorry if I'm missing something here, my econ-fu is weak.
  • labrador 5y ago
    My Dad couldn't get a loan from the bank because he had a bunch of kids and a moderatly paying job. He wasn't able to implement his ideas without capital. First generations of immigrants to this country solve this by pooling thier money. Some cultures in America still do this. I'm thinking that web3 is an attempt to recreate those informal pools of captial. GoFundMe, Kickstarter and Patreon were a good start but they still act as gate keepers. I'm just tryint to get a feel for where the enthusiasm is coming from when you look behind the plebes who are getting ripped off to the thinkers with an actual strategy.
    • cdrini 5y ago
      I would highly recommend this Johnny Harris video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0V_zkng4go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0V_zkng4go . It does a great job of summarizing all the (too many!) points in the debate from a neutral standpoint--including enthusiasm. It's so neutral, that it actually leaves you feeling a little lost at the end :P Which I think is the state of the debate, unfortunately. But it'll probably get you closer to answers than I will--I'm afraid I don't have any.
• coinward 5y ago
  web3 is a recycled 5 year old meme from the ico craze. it worked back then to separate the ignorant from bitcoin. try not to let web3 memes distract you from understanding how the emergence of peer to peer electronic cash and a new base layer money will actually affect you moving forward
• ericfrazier 5y ago
  Doesn't the current locus of control have enough computing resources to takeover >50% anyway, assuming it hasn't already?
• al2o3cr 5y ago
  "What if Mr. Ponzi has discovered a totally new way to invest?"
• labrador 5y ago
  • pritambaral 5y ago
    > ... contempt prior to investigation ... Are you implying that HN hasn't already "investigated" what you're asking? > ... you can't even brainstorm about it here. Looks like you're implying HN hasn't already "brainstormed" / thought about what you're asking. > Hacker News is unbelievably closed minded ... Consider this instead: you asked a question that has been debated many, many times over — to the point of nearly everyone here being tired of the same old debate — and you come in now pretending to be the first one raising this topic, and when you're inevitably shunned, claiming "oh, look, you guys aren't even open to discussing it!". ---- > Clearly we need a new Hacker News for people under the age of 35. Baseless ageism and mis-attribution. I'm far below the age of 35. There's plenty of people on HN above the age of 35 that are wholeheartedly on your side. You're only doing yourself a disservice — and signalling a clear lack of good-faith — when you make remarks like this.
    • labrador 5y ago
      You make some good points. I gave an emotional response. My emotions come from frustration. I spend a fair amount of time on Hacker News and really love the site, but I'm upset that Hacker News is overwhelming negative, focusing on current technology shortcomings. You say the topic has been debated. I say it hasn't. It's been roundly rejected. That's not debate. My post was an attempt, probably a lame one, to expand my own thinking and hopefully find one or two others who might look at it with a wide angle lens. Sadly, this didn't happen, so since posting this I've found other communities who are open to back and forth discussions about the topic. I'm an optimist. There's a story about about who is told to shovel manure out of a stable and is very happy about it. When asked why he said "with all this shit, there's got to be a pony around here!" I'm trying to find the pony. HN is the wrong place to look.
      • pritambaral 5y ago
        > I gave an emotional response. Neither your topic nor this place suit emotional debates. > I'm upset that Hacker News is overwhelming negative ... Perhaps you should set your emotional upset aside and consider why, instead of blindly rejecting all of HN because of how HN's rejection makes you feel. > ... focusing on current technology shortcomings There is a lot of that here, yes, but that has not been the sole "focus" of HN commenters on this topic. I find it easy to ignore and dismiss comments that focus solely on this , and still participate in discussions involving other aspects. Perhaps you should too. > You say the topic has been debated. I say it hasn't. I have participated in the debates, rationally (i.e., without emotions). I say you haven't. > It's been roundly rejected. That's not debate. I disagree that it's been roundly rejected, but even assuming so (for the sake of this point): a debate does not require "both sides" to win some votes. Unanimous rejection after consideration is a valid result of debates. ---- > ... When asked why he said "with all this shit, there's got to be a pony around here!" Nice story. But there's only so far you can stretch a simple analogy. Trust me, in the history of technology, there's often just "shit", no pony. And as more people keep entering this world, more shit keep getting produced and thrown around. In fact, it is ridiculous how easy it is to produce large quantities of it. > ... with all this shit, there's got to be a pony around here! Could it be a donkey instead?
• albertopv 5y ago
  This is not a question... Anyway, what I see in younger developers (but not only devs) is a lack of history knowledge. They almost know nothing about history, so they often repeat the same mistakes. Crypto* is fundamentally private money, something already tried with poor results.
• StewardMcOy 5y ago
  Given your use of the phrase "the plebes who are getting ripped off" in a comment, I suspect your sympathies aren't really with the unbanked and the lower classes, but I will nevertheless try to give an answer as if the question was asked in good faith. No one can really predict the future, but if I had to put money down on it, I would bet that if Web3 attains its technological goals, it will not attain its social goals. If dapps replace web sites, the infrastructure becomes truly decentralized, cryptocurrencies supplant fiat currencies, and people accept the legitimacy of digital scarcity through NFTs, it will probably be a net benefit to some people, but leave most people worse off. The impacts will be felt differently between the US, the rest of the developed world, and the developing world. I'll start with the US. Assuming your father was working class in the United States, and assuming that he was unable to secure a business loan from a bank or attract investment money, prior to crpytocurrencies, his only option for securing a loan would be a loan shark. If this was the 1990s or the 2000s, that loan shark could come in the form of a payday loan service. These services are the logical conclusion of unregulated capitalism for a financially struggling working class. Before they were regulated, they would give out loans with interest rates in the hundreds of percent. These rates were a response to the incredible financial risk the lenders took in lending to people who could not get traditional loans. Many would disappear or file for personal bankruptcy to avoid repayment, so they had to make as much money as they could from the people who made repayments. Nowadays, payday loans are regulated at the still incredibly high rate of 36%, but if crypto projects like Web3 succeed in circumventing government regulations, I suspect we'll see a return to the hundreds of percent loans that were once ubiquitous across the US. Lenders aren't going to get stupider just because they're lending cryptocurrencies. They're still going to calculate the risks of lending money to people like your father and act accordingly. We know this is how they'll act in the absence of regulation because it's how they acted in the absence of regulation in the recent past. Specifically, the ability to take out loans will not improve for those with little or no capital from what it was before. For the US and the rest of the developed world, ubiquitous cryptocurrencies will cause an increase in money laundering, scams, and robberies. For whose with access to banking, deposits are insured up to a certain amount. This benefit is largely theoretical for the unbanked, and it doesn't cover enough for the upper classes, but it's typically a good amount of protection for the admittedly shrinking middle class. Storing money in cryptocurrencies loses people that protection. Cryptocurrencies also don't have chargebacks or protections against certain kinds of scams. If cryptocurrencies supplant banks, banking becomes much riskier to the middle class, and thefts and scams will accelerate the decline of the middle class, widening the wealth gap. The ease at which cryptocurrencies can be stolen and laundered is already helping rouge nations like North Korea to finance weapons development and oppressive regimes. It's not that these regimes couldn't and haven't stolen money in other ways, but the mere existence of cryptocurrencies is making these nations richer than they otherwise would be, and I suspect that will have very negative international consequences. [1] For that matter, the existence of cryptocurrencies is fueling ransomware attacks against hospitals, governments, and infrastructure. I expect those will increase as well. For the developing world, I'm not sure what the net effect will be. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the details issues facing people in these countries. If I had to guess though, I suspect that crypto will offer them not much more than false hope. El Salvador's bitcoin program is basically a desperation play. Their own currency failed, and they're having lots of issues using the US dollar as a currency, because they have so little control over it. I can see why they felt like they had no choice but to try bitcoin, but I think the same lack of control over bitcoin will lead to similar issues in the long run. For countries which see cryptocurrencies as a threat, I don't think it would be difficult for them to crack down on mining and trading operations in their country. For countries that are indifferent to it, their residents can be crypto millionaires on paper, but if they try to actually import any of that wealth to the country in the form of goods and services, the governments will take notice and tax or seize it. Some may be able to use cryptocurrencies to migrate to the developed world and establish themselves, but I imagine this will become harder and harder the more cryptocurrencies proliferate. Once the general public get use to them, figure out how they work, they'll start to move them around in the same patterns as fiat currency. The developed world isn't going to start gifting wealth to the developing world and the lower classes just because the money is free from government control. Similarly, in the US, I know some trans people who got in on bitcoin or etherium early and were able to use it to fund health care that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. This is absolutely a net good, but I suspect this too will become more difficult as Web3 ascends. It was only possible because they got in early. But more importantly, it was only necessary because the US doesn't have universal healthcare, and they were financial losers in capitalism. The core problem with Web3 and cryptocurrencies is that they're more capitalism. I've blogged about this [2], but in short, the fact that your father couldn't get a loan was a consequence of capitalism. Whether that's a feature or a bug of capitalism is up to interpretation, but you can't change capitalism with more capitalism. You can't fix capitalism's flaws with more capitalism. If you really want to improve the ability of anyone to be an entrepreneur no matter their financial status, you have to look to non-capitalist systems like universal basic income, universal healthcare, and other socialist initiatives. 1: https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-cryptocurrency-theft-ethereum/ https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-cryptocurrency-theft... 2: https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/ https://meipouchou.com/blog/web3-metaverse-lain/
• satisfice 5y ago
  Here is a thought experiment. Think what would happen if nothing stopped anyone from doing anything. Whatever peace and privacy and security you enjoy would be gone. No culture or work could be protected from the merest whim of a single nihilist. Only children and other people with nothing to lose want a world of perfect liberty. Powerful and obsessed people might want that world because they think they are equipped to bend it to their will. It’s not a paradise, it’s a nightmare. We need social order. We need responsible gatekeepers. I haven’t heard anyone explain how web3 leads to a kinder or safer world.
• rcarmo 5y ago
  If Web3 turns out to be a success, then I’ll just retire and take up woodworking because the entire tech industry has finally gone batshit insane. (or, better yet, move back into consulting and wait until past wisdom is required, which shouldn’t take long).
• doomleika 5y ago
  If you are an CS engineer you should be able to call out BS after a few hours reading the "web3" materials. From what I've seem over past two month it's all about deregulated money, nothing to do w/ decentralization/trustless/demarcation, it's much worse. Is it a one-in-a-decade career chance? Absolutely, scam unsuspecting plebs, rug dumb coiner/NFTs, be an exchange and be rich, write a mixer/tumbler and laundering blood money. As long as you know when to jump before the heat is too much. Just...don't lie to yourself. Same stuff, different flavors, world is not going to be a better place because of you, actually, quite the opposite.(Same applies to traditional corps)