3 ms·

I went in expecting the typical half-baked web3 sucks arguments popular in HN. But this is actually good, nuanced stuff. You are 100% right. We need more of th

I went in expecting the typical half-baked web3 sucks arguments popular in HN. But this is actually good, nuanced stuff. You are 100% right. We need more of these specific critiques on web3 projects to separate the clowns from the scammers from the legit actors.

yanmaani 5y ago
Thank you!
tata71 5y ago
Clowns can be helped, maliciousness cannot.
vmception 5y ago
> We need more of these specific critiques on web3 projects to separate the clowns from the scammers from the legit actors. Pretty much everyone is going to flip from "I don't like this, there is no use because I haven't seen one, I wish it would go away" to "I don't like this, here is how I can improve it"
- magicjosh 5y ago
  I welcome this flip! The former is exhausting. At least the latter offers some thought of how to improve things.
raffy 5y ago
> But this is actually good, nuanced stuff. What's good about it? Half the post is about Bitcoin. A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution. There's no link to any of the contracts or code. There's no comparison with existing providers and the trade-offs. There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving. There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception. Flash loan voting? Clueless.
- yanmaani 5y ago
  > Half the post is about Bitcoin. Yes, because Bitcoin is an actually working, properly designed system used by people for real-world ends. > A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution That would be two lines just below "Which one is ENS?", plus the image text? > There's no link to any of the contracts or code. What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to? > There's no comparison with existing providers Unstoppable Domains is arguably even less serious, Handshake doesn't allow you to own domains at the second level but is otherwise solid, [project] is good but there is a conflict of interest associated with me promoting it, MoneroDNS and Emercoin seem all right but I haven't looked into them deeply. > the trade-offs The trade-offs only exist because ENS exists as a "crypto-asset," the governance of which has to be freely traded on the open market for the economic structure to work. If ENS wouldn't have the purpose of making a profit for the insiders, there wouldn't be any reason to make all of these strange trade-offs in the first place. When you sacrifice censorship-resistance and decentralization, what is it that you get in exchange? What are you trading it for? > There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving. How do you expect them to "evolve" in the future? Is there a specific issue that will be solved in a certain way, or is it like Proof of Stake, where "new developments" at an unspecified point in the future are supposed to fix all the problems, so you shouldn't ask too much tricky questions today? > There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception. Well, I note that ENS made direct lies about their decentralization status prior to November 10, 2021, I note that ENS publicly announced their intention to censor if required, and I note that a few hundred keyholders is better than seven. Is there something else you think I should acknowledge? > Flash loan voting? Clueless. Does ENS have some special precaution against this? Or is it simply outside of the threat model?
  - magicjosh 5y ago
    > What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to? I can imagine raising the price of renewal on a domain. But how would "they" control allocating the domain when it expires?
bb88 5y ago
> We need more of these specific critiques on web3 projects to separate the clowns from the scammers from the legit actors. Comments like that will kill web3 on it's own. No need for anti-web3 people to get involved.
bcmillegan 5y ago
Good thing the central claims of the blog post are false. I explained in my top level comment.

yanmaani 5y ago

Thank you!

tata71 5y ago

Clowns can be helped, maliciousness cannot.

vmception 5y ago

> We need more of these specific critiques on web3 projects to separate the clowns from the scammers from the legit actors. Pretty much everyone is going to flip from "I don't like this, there is no use because I haven't seen one, I wish it would go away" to "I don't like this, here is how I can improve it"

magicjosh 5y ago
I welcome this flip! The former is exhausting. At least the latter offers some thought of how to improve things.

raffy 5y ago

> But this is actually good, nuanced stuff. What's good about it? Half the post is about Bitcoin. A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution. There's no link to any of the contracts or code. There's no comparison with existing providers and the trade-offs. There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving. There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception. Flash loan voting? Clueless.

yanmaani 5y ago
> Half the post is about Bitcoin. Yes, because Bitcoin is an actually working, properly designed system used by people for real-world ends. > A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution That would be two lines just below "Which one is ENS?", plus the image text? > There's no link to any of the contracts or code. What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to? > There's no comparison with existing providers Unstoppable Domains is arguably even less serious, Handshake doesn't allow you to own domains at the second level but is otherwise solid, [project] is good but there is a conflict of interest associated with me promoting it, MoneroDNS and Emercoin seem all right but I haven't looked into them deeply. > the trade-offs The trade-offs only exist because ENS exists as a "crypto-asset," the governance of which has to be freely traded on the open market for the economic structure to work. If ENS wouldn't have the purpose of making a profit for the insiders, there wouldn't be any reason to make all of these strange trade-offs in the first place. When you sacrifice censorship-resistance and decentralization, what is it that you get in exchange? What are you trading it for? > There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving. How do you expect them to "evolve" in the future? Is there a specific issue that will be solved in a certain way, or is it like Proof of Stake, where "new developments" at an unspecified point in the future are supposed to fix all the problems, so you shouldn't ask too much tricky questions today? > There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception. Well, I note that ENS made direct lies about their decentralization status prior to November 10, 2021, I note that ENS publicly announced their intention to censor if required, and I note that a few hundred keyholders is better than seven. Is there something else you think I should acknowledge? > Flash loan voting? Clueless. Does ENS have some special precaution against this? Or is it simply outside of the threat model?
- magicjosh 5y ago
  > What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to? I can imagine raising the price of renewal on a domain. But how would "they" control allocating the domain when it expires?

bb88 5y ago

> We need more of these specific critiques on web3 projects to separate the clowns from the scammers from the legit actors. Comments like that will kill web3 on it's own. No need for anti-web3 people to get involved.

bcmillegan 5y ago

Good thing the central claims of the blog post are false. I explained in my top level comment.