4 ms·

This is a Web2 relay to access Web3. If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot.

This is a Web2 relay to access Web3. If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot. Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.

desindol 4y ago
Citation needed.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Which part?
  - desindol 4y ago
    Web3 functionality
- px43 4y ago
  Um, use Brave, or any other decent web3 browswer. Put in any .eth URL, and it works fine. Eth.link was a crutch. A silly hack that makes it so you can take a .eth URL, add ".link" to it, and get onto .eth sites without having to use a modern browser.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Thankfully, not querying random blockchains is not what makes a modern browser. Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      The original comment, for which a citation was requested, was: "If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot." The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        No, the comment implied that browsers not allowing you to access websites on your favourite shitcoin without going through a normal TLD are not modern browsers.
        woojoo666 4y ago
        So you focused on 2 words rather than the main content of the comment
        ohgodplsno 4y ago
        When these two words have been very obviously selected and added in purpose to make people believe that web3 is the future (when all it is is a pitiful attempt at both hijacking a term and a pitiful attempt at getting people to pay for literally any interaction online) and that anyone not having access to it is in the past, yes. Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        If you think Web3 is not the future, that's a perfectly reasonable position to have, and possibly correct, but it'd be more constructive to substantiate it instead of merely spewing vitriol and ad hominem.
      - throwoutway 4y ago
        Isn’t Brave just using their own relay?
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Just because eth enthusiasts think it’s the same as web3.0 doesn’t make that the case
troad 4y ago
The equivalent to the relay in that case is just the browser. If control of the browser passes to someone else - say because the dev is in jail and the server or signing key is seized - you now have a silently-self-updating piece of software running code from an unknown third party. This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The browser is client side code, that runs independently on millions of people's computers. It is not a centralized relay, and control over someone's browser can't be "passed to someone else". On Chrome, all updates have to be manually approved by the user - it is not "silently-self-updating". A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve. >>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain. That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding. >>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there". I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.
dashdot 4y ago
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Because most of us are smart enough to realize the sheer joke that crypto is
  - dashdot 4y ago
    But this is not about anyone's opinion... It's a straight-up technical fact. It's always true, whether you like it or not.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Being smart and as a result, disliking decentralized digital currencies, shouldn't lead to you willfully misunderstanding the technology.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jsheard 4y ago
This isn't a problem inherent to centralized "Web2" services, it's entirely possible to share custody of a domain name so no one person is a single point of failure if they drop dead or go to prison for getting too friendly with North Korea. You'd hope that a proponent of smart contracts would be familiar with planning for contingencies like that, since with those there's nobody to appeal to if something goes wrong later, but Griffith didn't think that far ahead.

desindol 4y ago

Citation needed.

ETH_start 4y ago
Which part?
- desindol 4y ago
  Web3 functionality
px43 4y ago
Um, use Brave, or any other decent web3 browswer. Put in any .eth URL, and it works fine. Eth.link was a crutch. A silly hack that makes it so you can take a .eth URL, add ".link" to it, and get onto .eth sites without having to use a modern browser.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Thankfully, not querying random blockchains is not what makes a modern browser. Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The original comment, for which a citation was requested, was: "If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot." The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      No, the comment implied that browsers not allowing you to access websites on your favourite shitcoin without going through a normal TLD are not modern browsers.
      - woojoo666 4y ago
        So you focused on 2 words rather than the main content of the comment
        ohgodplsno 4y ago
        When these two words have been very obviously selected and added in purpose to make people believe that web3 is the future (when all it is is a pitiful attempt at both hijacking a term and a pitiful attempt at getting people to pay for literally any interaction online) and that anyone not having access to it is in the past, yes. Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        If you think Web3 is not the future, that's a perfectly reasonable position to have, and possibly correct, but it'd be more constructive to substantiate it instead of merely spewing vitriol and ad hominem.
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      Isn’t Brave just using their own relay?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Just because eth enthusiasts think it’s the same as web3.0 doesn’t make that the case

troad 4y ago

The equivalent to the relay in that case is just the browser. If control of the browser passes to someone else - say because the dev is in jail and the server or signing key is seized - you now have a silently-self-updating piece of software running code from an unknown third party. This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.

ETH_start 4y ago
The browser is client side code, that runs independently on millions of people's computers. It is not a centralized relay, and control over someone's browser can't be "passed to someone else". On Chrome, all updates have to be manually approved by the user - it is not "silently-self-updating". A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve. >>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain. That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding. >>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there". I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.

dashdot 4y ago

IntelMiner 4y ago
Because most of us are smart enough to realize the sheer joke that crypto is
- dashdot 4y ago
  But this is not about anyone's opinion... It's a straight-up technical fact. It's always true, whether you like it or not.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Being smart and as a result, disliking decentralized digital currencies, shouldn't lead to you willfully misunderstanding the technology.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jsheard 4y ago

This isn't a problem inherent to centralized "Web2" services, it's entirely possible to share custody of a domain name so no one person is a single point of failure if they drop dead or go to prison for getting too friendly with North Korea. You'd hope that a proponent of smart contracts would be familiar with planning for contingencies like that, since with those there's nobody to appeal to if something goes wrong later, but Griffith didn't think that far ahead.