5 ms·

And that's why web3 frustrates me to no end. Decentralized services were common in the "old" internet, web3 just takes than and adds a layer of ponzi and specul

by simias 4y ago

And that's why web3 frustrates me to no end. Decentralized services were common in the "old" internet, web3 just takes than and adds a layer of ponzi and speculation on top of them. If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it. Beyond that having a trusted third party does suck for some things, but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong. With cryptocrap I'm one hack away from losing my life savings, my domain, the history of all my transactions and even my monkey pictures!

rglullis 4y ago
Tell me how decentralized services allow applications to be permissionless, censorship- and sybil-resistant without a blockchain. I will make both of us rich.
- williamtrask 4y ago
  Tell me how blockchain makes anything Sybil-resistant and I’ll bite. I can create as many Bitcoin/eth/etc wallets as I want.
  - Kerbonut 4y ago
    Ethereum combats that with the concept of gas. You have to pay to play, which is a concept I’ve heard repeated tons of places for ending spam email.
    - pdpi 4y ago
      Gas doesn't do much for Cybil resistance, it's largely meant to stop you from clogging up the network by publishing a transaction that executes the busy beaver function on some nasty input, or something similarly hostile.
  - pdpi 4y ago
    There's plenty of really good criticisms of cryptocurrencies, but that's not one of them. The whole point of proof of work is Sybil-resistance. Because your voting power is tied to your hash rate, you can't just conjure up a bunch of voting power by creating as many wallets as you want. Ethereum's move to proof of stake keeps Sybil resistance but trades the power consumption of PoW for some amount of centralisation (because you need to hold funds to vote).
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  ‘Make both of us rich’ is exactly what we’re afraid of.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    What are you afraid of, really? People that can make innovations? My point was that the reason that people are doing all this work on the blockchain because no other solution has been shown to be better. Anyone that says "blockchain is not needed for that" should at least provide a better solution, or say "I actually prefer to keep the status quo".
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      I’m not the OP, but I think there is a very real concern that a single person or single group of people who create the “new better system” can significantly drain the resources of everyone else. We actively see this all the time on smaller scales (credit cards, global franchises, FAANG), but the idea of someone doing it at a larger scale should make us hesitate.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Oh, where do I begin? - You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek? - There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation: new products, new services, new business.
        PaulHoule 4y ago
        Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything. Real innovation is a lot of hard work. Recently I read a book by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton because I am teaching myself to make stereograms. Lipton spent a few years in the 1970s figuring out how to make quality stereo movies with the goal of developing a better system for exhibiting stereo movies. In 1980 he wrote a book (that book) which was a lot like a PhD thesis, he then invented the modern system for 3D movies with circular polarized light and sold his company in 2005. In the end he "got rich" but it wasn't quick. The blockhead ideology is a lot like the Amway ideology... Really working, creating something, building something, serving customers, is a lot of work for not enough remuneration. There's got to be some magic secret to riches without effort, and once you've got people to believe it exists, you can exploit them.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Tells us how blockchain allows applications to be permissionless, censorship- and sybil-resistant in any way that matters and doesn't conflict with the use of said apps.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    ENS and Handshake are exact examples of that.
- pabs3 4y ago
  The GNU Name System does this AFAIK: https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html
  - rglullis 4y ago
    GNS is not globally unique. It is censorship resistant, but it is not permissionless.
jkepler 4y ago
> If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it. Bitcoin was effectively invented 'today', yet you don't have to buy into a pyramid scheme to use it.[1] For example, you could simply use it for cross-border remittance to avoid paying Western Union's high fees, without ever holding bitcoin, by using an app like Strike to send dollars from the US to El Salvador (using bitcoin's instantaneous lightning network as the payment rails behind the scenes)[2]. Or you could prove the existence of a digital document at a certain time by using Peter Todd's Open Timestamps[3], which simply puts a hash or your file into an Op Return on bitcoin's blockchain. Or, you could work on developing software or providing support or writing tutorials for the bisq protocol, get paid for your work with their bisq token (which is simply colored bitcoin), and cash out to have you national currency dumped in your bank account using the bisq software which has been developed and supported by a decentralized community with its governance built directly on bitcoin.[4] If you really still think bitcoin is a pyramid scheme, there's plenty or ways one could benefit from it without having to "buy in" or hold it. But if you put in the time and learn, you'll discover bitcoin is innovative technology, distinctly separate from the crypto space awash with scams and rug-pulls, like the fiat world already is. [1] https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ [2] https://strike.me/ https://strike.me/ [3] https://opentimestamps.org/ https://opentimestamps.org/ [4] https://bisq.network/ https://bisq.network/
Huh1337 4y ago
Domains weren't decentralized at any point in history. IP address allocation is also managed centrally. > but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong Have you actually tried it out? I lost several domains through no fault of mine (2 times fault of registrar, 1 time fault of national TLD manager) and absolutely nobody helped me. Even tried suing - in 2 cases (the registrar fault) I got small monetary compensation for lost profit (so good luck with personal domains) but the domain was always lost forever. And when it was the TLD's fault I got nothing whatsoever.
Ajedi32 4y ago
The problem with decentralized systems that don't include a currency component is that there's no extrinsic incentive to contribute anything to the network, only to consume. BitTorrent suffers from this problem; they even have a term for it: leeching. It's managed to survive despite this purely off of the generosity and goodwill of a community of dedicated users, but if BitTorrent were to ever have its eternal September moment I suspect the problem would quickly be felt rather acutely. With other systems like decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2] where (unlike with BitTorrent) there are no inherent practical limits on how many resources a single user can consume, the consequences of not including a currency component would be even more severe. As for the "no recourse" problem, that's inherent to the very idea of self-sovereignty. Yes it's a weakness with decentralized systems, but it's also their greatest strength. [1]: https://sia.tech/ https://sia.tech/ [2]: https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/

by simias 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

Tell me how decentralized services allow applications to be permissionless, censorship- and sybil-resistant without a blockchain. I will make both of us rich.

williamtrask 4y ago
Tell me how blockchain makes anything Sybil-resistant and I’ll bite. I can create as many Bitcoin/eth/etc wallets as I want.
- Kerbonut 4y ago
  Ethereum combats that with the concept of gas. You have to pay to play, which is a concept I’ve heard repeated tons of places for ending spam email.
  - pdpi 4y ago
    Gas doesn't do much for Cybil resistance, it's largely meant to stop you from clogging up the network by publishing a transaction that executes the busy beaver function on some nasty input, or something similarly hostile.
- pdpi 4y ago
  There's plenty of really good criticisms of cryptocurrencies, but that's not one of them. The whole point of proof of work is Sybil-resistance. Because your voting power is tied to your hash rate, you can't just conjure up a bunch of voting power by creating as many wallets as you want. Ethereum's move to proof of stake keeps Sybil resistance but trades the power consumption of PoW for some amount of centralisation (because you need to hold funds to vote).
PaulHoule 4y ago
‘Make both of us rich’ is exactly what we’re afraid of.
- rglullis 4y ago
  What are you afraid of, really? People that can make innovations? My point was that the reason that people are doing all this work on the blockchain because no other solution has been shown to be better. Anyone that says "blockchain is not needed for that" should at least provide a better solution, or say "I actually prefer to keep the status quo".
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    I’m not the OP, but I think there is a very real concern that a single person or single group of people who create the “new better system” can significantly drain the resources of everyone else. We actively see this all the time on smaller scales (credit cards, global franchises, FAANG), but the idea of someone doing it at a larger scale should make us hesitate.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Oh, where do I begin? - You do realize that the comment was tongue-in-cheek? - There is no "resource draining" here. Even if someone found a way to solve the problem of distributed consensus without using a blockchain and found a way to make money out of it, they would be rich by wealth creation: new products, new services, new business.
      - PaulHoule 4y ago
        Web3 is often more interested in moving money around (e.g. "Ponzi Schemes") than really creating anything. Real innovation is a lot of hard work. Recently I read a book by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Lipton because I am teaching myself to make stereograms. Lipton spent a few years in the 1970s figuring out how to make quality stereo movies with the goal of developing a better system for exhibiting stereo movies. In 1980 he wrote a book (that book) which was a lot like a PhD thesis, he then invented the modern system for 3D movies with circular polarized light and sold his company in 2005. In the end he "got rich" but it wasn't quick. The blockhead ideology is a lot like the Amway ideology... Really working, creating something, building something, serving customers, is a lot of work for not enough remuneration. There's got to be some magic secret to riches without effort, and once you've got people to believe it exists, you can exploit them.
coldtea 4y ago
Tells us how blockchain allows applications to be permissionless, censorship- and sybil-resistant in any way that matters and doesn't conflict with the use of said apps.
- rglullis 4y ago
  ENS and Handshake are exact examples of that.
pabs3 4y ago
The GNU Name System does this AFAIK: https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html
- rglullis 4y ago
  GNS is not globally unique. It is censorship resistant, but it is not permissionless.

jkepler 4y ago

> If bittorent was invented today you'd have to buy into some pyramid scheme to use it. Bitcoin was effectively invented 'today', yet you don't have to buy into a pyramid scheme to use it.[1] For example, you could simply use it for cross-border remittance to avoid paying Western Union's high fees, without ever holding bitcoin, by using an app like Strike to send dollars from the US to El Salvador (using bitcoin's instantaneous lightning network as the payment rails behind the scenes)[2]. Or you could prove the existence of a digital document at a certain time by using Peter Todd's Open Timestamps[3], which simply puts a hash or your file into an Op Return on bitcoin's blockchain. Or, you could work on developing software or providing support or writing tutorials for the bisq protocol, get paid for your work with their bisq token (which is simply colored bitcoin), and cash out to have you national currency dumped in your bank account using the bisq software which has been developed and supported by a decentralized community with its governance built directly on bitcoin.[4] If you really still think bitcoin is a pyramid scheme, there's plenty or ways one could benefit from it without having to "buy in" or hold it. But if you put in the time and learn, you'll discover bitcoin is innovative technology, distinctly separate from the crypto space awash with scams and rug-pulls, like the fiat world already is. [1] https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ [2] https://strike.me/ https://strike.me/ [3] https://opentimestamps.org/ https://opentimestamps.org/ [4] https://bisq.network/ https://bisq.network/

Huh1337 4y ago

Domains weren't decentralized at any point in history. IP address allocation is also managed centrally. > but at least it means that I have a recourse if something goes wrong Have you actually tried it out? I lost several domains through no fault of mine (2 times fault of registrar, 1 time fault of national TLD manager) and absolutely nobody helped me. Even tried suing - in 2 cases (the registrar fault) I got small monetary compensation for lost profit (so good luck with personal domains) but the domain was always lost forever. And when it was the TLD's fault I got nothing whatsoever.

Ajedi32 4y ago

The problem with decentralized systems that don't include a currency component is that there's no extrinsic incentive to contribute anything to the network, only to consume. BitTorrent suffers from this problem; they even have a term for it: leeching. It's managed to survive despite this purely off of the generosity and goodwill of a community of dedicated users, but if BitTorrent were to ever have its eternal September moment I suspect the problem would quickly be felt rather acutely. With other systems like decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2] where (unlike with BitTorrent) there are no inherent practical limits on how many resources a single user can consume, the consequences of not including a currency component would be even more severe. As for the "no recourse" problem, that's inherent to the very idea of self-sovereignty. Yes it's a weakness with decentralized systems, but it's also their greatest strength. [1]: https://sia.tech/ https://sia.tech/ [2]: https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/