7 ms·
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
by QuantumGood 3y ago
Barely makes an impression in the parade of crime that is web3isgoinggreat.com/
- a_JIT_pie 3y agoCan you explain how web3 is responsible for all the crypto nonsense for a layman?
- epgui 3y agoI can't speak for the other commenter, but I don't think they said that "web3 is responsible for all the crypto nonsense". My impression is that they're just hinting at a relationship between the two.
- ceejayoz 3y agoWeb3 is the crypto nonsense. It was a rebrand attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
- bbor 3y agoFrom this forum we shall organize the great retaking of “Web3” for the 3D paradigm it was always meant to be. It’s in the name!! It’s sad that blockchain went the way it did, because it’s probably a great technology when you don’t expect it to revolutionize the entire internet.
- Tao3300 3y ago> it’s probably a great technology It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.
- altruios 3y agodigital voting is the use-case I hear get brought up all the time... seems like it would work...
- generic92034 3y agoEspecially for those who set up the digital voting. ;)
- tim333 3y agoA basic problem is blockchains are public. How you voted is usually private.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better Eh, Treasuries should probably be traded on a blockchain. Cryptocurrency is nonsense. But the tech has legs. It just needs to, ironically, clear its way of the crypto/web3 crowd first.
- lokar 3y agoNo serious person wants a financial system based on “code is law”
- nradov 3y agoWhat's the point of trading on a blockchain? The existing securities settlement process seems to be working fine.
- SI_Rob 3y agoI tend to think highly of most of the comments I see from you man, but you are quite confused about how this stuff works if you believe that the pay-to-play aspect of a cryptocurrency can be divorced from the blockchain used to track it. They are no more separable from one another than front is from back or up is from down. A blockchain without the economic carrot-stick power to protect its own integrity and internal rules, power that comes from aligning the behavior of otherwise unrelated and even mutually antagonistic custodial participants by incentivizing their common interest in getting rich (or at least not losing their existing wealth), is no more than a database with superfluous "decentralization theater" yak shaving bolted on. If defecting from the game doesn't cost you a meaningful penalty (and such cost is defined by a fixed unit of measure, in order to distinguish in-game gains from losses) then you are not compelled to follow its rules except by your own conscience. This would be noble, but it would not be a blockchain.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThis is fair, I should have said could instead of should.
- mrb 3y agoAn irreversible permissionless way to send funds near-instantaneously to anyone anywhere in the world is pretty darn good at a lot of perfectly legal use cases. My personal favorite example is that I once used Bitcoin for an emergency so my (then-homeless) friend could receive cash in hands from a Bitcoin ATM, in a matter of less than 1 hour, on a Sunday, while I was vacationing remote. Nothing, and I truly mean it because we searched, nothing else would have worked that fast: try setting up a new Western Union/MoneyGram account online on a Sunday, and have it verified and activated... nope. Fun thing is my friend had never used Bitcoin before that day. Bitcoin ATMs are a very convenient gateway to "cash in hands", when needed.
- AlexandrB 3y agoCan do this for free in Canada with Interac as long as both parties have Canadian bank accounts. But for international transfer theres not a good solution AFAIK. Bitcoin ATMs are an interesting example because they involve at least one trusted third party - the Bitcoin ATM operator.
- mrb 3y agoInterac wouldn't have worked even if him and I had been Canadians. My friend was unbanked due to past financial issues (which is also the reason he was homeless at the time.) This is one significant advantage of Bitcoin, that it works for the unbanked.
- askonomm 3y agoWise (previously Transferwise) can do international transfer within seconds. If you're in Europe then payments between any bank in Europe take seconds (SEPA payments).
- mrb 3y agoWise wouldn't have worked as my friend was among the 10M American adults who are unbanked. Also I doubt him and I would have been able to do account setup on a Sunday, within 1 hour, which is the time it took us to do the transfer, despite this situation being his first time ever using Bitcoin.
- andrewflnr 3y agoThat's much closer to being true now than it was when bitcoin started getting popular, in no small part because it scared financial institutions into competing on convenience. But really, who says legality is the arbiter of greatness anyway? Are you really prepared to say that every illegal use of blockchain should never happen? I'm not.
- Tao3300 3y ago> who says legality is the arbiter of greatness anyway? I don't know; who does? I said it was bad at all the things.
- ChainOfFools 3y agoBlockchain is not a technology in the sense of being a better "how" for some existing problem. blockchain is before anything else, a social contract based on the premise that everything humans care about ('value') really does boil down to "voting with money," and thus requiries enforcement of such economic consensus through technology. It is sufficiently removed from expectations people normally have about how they relate to one another that it would require quite a revolution indeed to be adopted in the capacity in which it is intended to function as intended, that is, to become the ultimate source of truth for every transaction on Earth. It's a back door attempt to fundamentally rewire how value is routed through society, and in the abstract this _might_ be a good thing (perhaps too generous with that 'might') in practice it cannot possibly happen due to physical constraints on consensus formation at the global, realtime scale that it would have to happen. As a result shortcuts are taken (or appear organically, i.e. exchages) in the form of centralized nodes of consensus settlement (what the promoters like to call Layer 2, sharding, or similar), and it's the people controlling these centralized nodes who end up becoming the new kings of this "revolutionized" system, the trust-me-bro's of trustlessness. I've met some of them, and they are not people who I would ever want to have anyone I care about to be under the thumb of.
- Tao3300 3y ago> a social contract requiring enforcement through technology That's fundamentally a bad thing. I want my social contracts enforced socially. The rot is at the heart.
- ChainOfFools 3y agoNo disagreement here, not a fan.* but so many arguments miss this point. the problems with blockchain are rooted in the why; the how is mostly a sideshow but admittedly much more expedient to criticize in comparison. * were not for HN's character limit my username would have started with the word 'block'
- drzaiusapelord 3y agoIts sad to think web 2.0 so long ago was a move towards more human centric websites, UI's, AJAXy sites, etc and now web3 is just a marketing term for fraudsters, exit scammers, shady VC's, and criminals. The late-stage capitalism of the internet is obvious to see.
- robgibbons 3y agoWeb3 never had anything to do with the web. It was always a vain attempt to cash in on the aura associated with web 2.0 by sounding like a legitimate heir to the heritage of the WWW. It is however, as you said, just a convenient marketing term for crypto bros and blockchain scamware. Web 3.0 as Tim Berners-Lee envisions it might have some legs, but web3 was a always an empty marketing vessel.
- rjbwork 3y agoweb3 is the moniker these crypto-zealots use for their crypto-currency-all-the-things efforts. It secondarily has connotations of decentralization with stuff like Mastodon, but relatively few people care about that stuff.
- abujazar 3y agoweb3 is a term coined by some of the people behind the crypto nonsense, as if it could be a successor to 'web 2.0'
- orwin 3y agoBlockchains are a fun tools, i really like some ideas (ipfs, etherium and solidity), but i want to separate it from the cryptocurrency nonsense. Luckily, almost all grifters and zealots started talking about "web3", to re appropriate the term (like they did "crypto", which mean cryptography for old and cybersec people). Hence i associate web3 with the grift, and blockchain with the technology. Probably gp does the same.
- appplication 3y agoThat’s a fun site.
- moose_man 3y agoCrypto is a scam (including Bitcoin) anybody treating it otherwise is overly credulous or in on the scam. Maybe it started out with better intentions but it is irredeemable.
- cft 3y agoAnd so is economic growth by printing USDs. Let's see which one collapses first.
- moose_man 3y agoI'm not sure if you're betting on the collapse of the USD, the collapse of economic growth or the collapse of the US economy.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoFor discussion purposed just a few historical fiat currencies, since your confidence in USD seems a bit overblown, especially for a currency whose issuer is now spending more on interest payments than their military, an indicator of possible future instability as a store of value. 1. German Weimar Republic (Germany) - The German Mark, introduced in 1924 after World War I, was originally intended to replace the hyperinflated German Papiermark. However, the Great Depression and military reparations led to massive deficit spending, resulting in hyperinflation starting around 1921. By 1923, one US dollar equaled approximately 4.2 trillion Reichsmarks. 2. French Revolutionary Franc (France) - After the French Revolution in the late 18th century, France's new revolutionary government issued the assignats, which were paper money used as part of a monetary reform program. Initially, these notes held value due to their being backed by goods such as grain; however, excessive printing eventually led to severe hyperinflation between 1796 and 1797, where prices rose exponentially. 3. Hungarian Pengő (Hungary) - Introduced in 1946, the Hungarian pengő suffered from rampant inflation due to economic mismanagement and Marshall Plan aid exchange rates. Between 1945 and 1946, the exchange rate for one US dollar was set at HUF 52, but due to various factors, including nationalization, hyperinflation reached an estimated 44 quadrillions to the US dollar by 1946. 4. Zimbabwean Dollar (Zimbabwe) - Succeeding the British colonial Rhodesian dollar, Zimbabwe adopted its own fiat currency, the Zimbabwean dollar, upon independence in 1980. Hyperinflation began in the mid-1970s, and by November 2004, it had become virtually worthless, forcing the country to abandon it. 5. Mexican Peso (Mexico) - Following the Mexican-American war, Mexico faced significant debt. To finance the national debt, a silver peso coin was minted. Despite its initial value, hyperinflation struck, and by the late 19th century, the Mexican peso became almost worthless. Numerous attempts at currency stabilization failed until the introduction of the "El Banco" gold standard in 1914.
- happytiger 3y agoIt’s such a reasonable thing to expect any level of hacking. Consider the idea that w3 is the transition of assets into literal Internet money. We digitized wealth and w3 concentrated those supplies into readily available large quantity targets. The idea that there would be anything but a massive acceleration of crime and fraud as a result of the digitization of actual money is actually hilarious. It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point… The real question is who and how this massive financialization and tokenization exercise will benefit, because it’s increasingly clear that the old guard has designs on how to control it pretty effectively and it’s not actually as free or anonymous as many people think. Some exceptions apply.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMaybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.
- mrb 3y agoYou could also say "more power than 3 large US cities" (Los Angeles = 60 TWh/yr, Bitcoin = 180 TWh/yr) and your statement would be equally valid, yet much less impressive. Saying "mid-size country" is about as useful as "mid-size rocks" since mid-sized countries, like mid-sized rocks span 3-4 orders of magnitudes. Fist-sized? Regrigerator-sized? Bus-sized? Did you know that China curtails more hydropower (200+ TWh/yr [1]) than the global electricity consumption of Bitcoin, than entire "mid-size countries"? China literally spills water through the dams without powering the turbines, because they have a hydropower surplus that they can't redistribute through their national grid. When you start learning things like that, you realize Bitcoin's electricity consumption is, fortunately, still a drop in the bucket compared to the immense waste from, well, everything else humans do on the planet. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117312315 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640...
- block_dagger 3y agoHow much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.
- Zaskoda 3y agoBitcoin != Web3 Bitcoin == Web5
- throwup238 3y agoSo it's 66.67% worse?