Web3 Is Bullshit
stephendiehl.com
stephendiehl.com
One of the best, most concise things I've read in a while. People are trying to move from a world in which compute resources are efficient and almost limitless to a world of scarcity because they want to build an economic system where you can trade your fortnite skins for online currency. Creating economic ownership schemes of things that nobody needs to own because they're not scarce in the first place.
The nature of economics and markets changes radically in ways we can't predict. Post-scarcity systems could be fundamentally unstable concurrent with fungible currencies of the type we use now. New mechanisms of valuation based on time and so on might take hold, or it might require distribution of resources in ways not yet considered. The point being that incentives and accumulation of wealth will be radically different to the extent that there's not a clean or obvious connection to current incentives that drive human behavior.
They'll have day jobs and create art on the weekends and evenings. Alternately, they'll be sponsored through some full-time fellowship to create art.
If public wants a specific artist to create a specific art, they will be forced to pay such artist money to incentive them. Examples: patreon, Kickstarter, etc.
What part of post-scarcity don't you understand? Money doesn't matter. Post-scarcity.
That would be a pretty huge departure from how we currently create and transact anything of value, so I’d say I don’t understand that.
Imagine life where the guy bumming on the street and the guy working hard at his craft are both contributing the same amount in the long run because there is more than enough to keep everyone living comfortably, with no need to actually compete.
In fact, I imagine the trauma of the paradigm shift could very well break a generation or so adjusting to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vulture_and_the_little_gir...
Blockchains don't exist to be fast, efficient, or scalable. They exist to be decentralized, permissionless, and censorship resistant.
> People are trying to move from a world in which compute resources are efficient and almost limitless to a world of scarcity because they want to build an economic system where you can trade your fortnite skins for online currency
Actually, no one's doing this. You've created a strawman argument. Netflix and Youtube aren't moving their hosting to the blockchain. Google's not storing database shards on IPFS. What people are trying to use blockchains for is the creation and persistence of digital property. Blockchains are expressly better at provenance because records cannot easily be altered, compared to a centralized service.
> Creating economic ownership schemes of things that nobody needs to own because they're not scarce in the first place.
Congratulations, you just defined western capitalism.
What I think it really boils down to is that web3 represents a shift away from the centralized dystopian organizations that employ most of the people in this community.
I see people claim, basically constantly, that the blockchain will be the source of all such content in the future and that this will free people from youtube's tyranny or whatever.
Uh, they just did.
I like how even the most educated and experienced people in the world can't bother to read the bitcoin whitepaper with no reservations.
I get your sarcasm, but the bitcoin paper has little to do with the EVM and smart contracts except as a foundational idea.
Either way, I’m inclined to agree with the beautiful sarcasm the OP posted. Trustless doesn’t make it more valuable than the trusted systems that we already have that are cheaper and do a decent job without artificial scarcity
I am not claiming the bitcoin whitepaper has anything to do with EVM, but it explains why a trustless, digital currency is needed and how it can be implemented. It predates real cryptocurrencies, so it can read easier without references to cryptocurrencies that exist today. The author has demonstrated incredible ignorance of why things like EVM exist in the first place.
>Trustless doesn’t make it more valuable than the trusted systems
Author doesn't understand why people think it could be/is valuable either.
Is there a source for the computational power of the ethereum VM?
It’s only crypto-bros who are trying to push “web3” as even a “thing”. Kind of like Zuckerberg and the metaverse. Their delusions of grandeur are so great as to warrant an increment in the web’s metaphorical major version number, but nobody else gives a shit.
Web 1.0 - The internet of information
Web 2.0 - The internet of people
Web 3.0 - The internet of things
I keep saying that there are only two kinds of people peddling crypto: scammers, and gullible fools with tenuous grasp of reality.
But can’t this be accomplished with older crypto primatives? Is there any implementation of posting my ssh public key and being able to prove my identity by signing a transaction? I ask because I agree with the author, the work that a blockchain peforms is pitiful given the extraordibary cputime and bandwidth committed to the effort, and I appreciate their psychoanalysis that so many of us willing to follow a messiah if they promise to lead us out of the desert.
What, like PGP? The only thing missing is integration with a common interchange... back in the day everybody on the net had a server and you could look up their PGP key. Of course, that was before https was common and it was all vulnerable to MITM (and PGP was deeply broken but the concept was there)
You don't need a blockchain for identity. The unique feature that Blockchains provide is protection against double spending (without reliance on a single party), but that isn't a concept relevant to authentication.
Everything else in "crypto" is the old boring cryptography. All the zero-knowledge proofs, secret sharing, anonymity, proofs of identity are just general-purpose tools that blockchain systems happen to use.
"I've used a transaction to log in — we should use wallets for identity" is like "I've used my car radio to listen to music — we should replace ipods with cars!"
Imagine I had a entirely PGP-based comment system, where the key used to sign comments serves as the identity rather than a database record. The software remaining the same, not even the owner of the database can change the text of the comment without also changing the key, which would immediately destroy the utility of such an action. Applications utilizing MetaMask are actually able to develop this kind of application where it's trustless end to end. Furthermore, comments could also be embedded as a transaction to a hash of the URL (or something akin to that), where anyone with an access to a ethereum node, public or private can access a global comments system.
>You don't need a blockchain for identity. The unique feature that Blockchains provide is protection against double spending (without reliance on a single party), but that isn't a concept relevant to authentication.
Blockchain doesn't solve the Authn problem, it only solves the Authz problem. I can hypothetically make my own game which has a DRM that can only be unlocked if your private key owns the access NFT. They are complementary.
Why not just sign content with a private key? Buy a YubiKey for $50, generate a key, announce it to the world via an account you control, continue to host content on non-blockchain servers. Your content can be verified with the same public key and no one can forge it.
I guess I just don't see the benefit of blockchain-distributing your public key, and how that helps protect from forgery. What's to stop me from publishing a 2nd message impersonating you with a new key saying "oops I lost the first key"? Or, conversely, what if you needed to generate a new key with no way of signing it with the older key? Or much worse: what if you haven't posted your key yet and I publish a key for @somebody first? Whatever medium you then use to announce "this person isn't me" can also be used by an attacker to discredit the real public key, or by you to announce your public key.
The site in question: http://www.adjoint.io/
this was originally brought up by robot_no_419 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121532 all props go to him.
It’s not as if the author is trying to pass legislation or close a business deal without disclosing how they’ll benefit. Like my sibling says, that the author puts their money where their mouth is by placing bets against crypto only makes their opinion more credible.
The public can make their minds up when presented with both sides of the argument rather than one side on Twitter.
I just want the common man to see crypto for what it really is with a balanced debate or interview, not just a blog post that only 'nerds' reads as Diehl states.
> It’s almost only nerds who read my blog...
After all, it would be more credible coming from him than me.
I've been following this space for a while and honestly I don't see how a counterpart would actually look like. We had blockchains/crypto for almost 13 years and the only thing that came out of it is a speculative semi-unregulated asset market. Still Forbes, NYT etc... always write articles like "Cryptocurrencies are volatile asset that is doomed to crash, but the underlying blockchain technology is here to say". Without offering any kind of proof for the second part of the statement.
Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution.
Whenever I bring this up, the response is usually: "We're just at the beginning, this will take a while". For a space that is claiming the disruption of everything it's moving pretty slow.
> Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution.
The only thing ledger specifies is virtual state and virtual assets (ie: tokens). A simple example of an application that is easier with a smart contract than traditional financial services and a plain old database is an escrow agent for handling a significant sum across hundreds or thousands of global participants (and thus potentially currencies). In practice; a smart contract application built on this may look like a time-constrained Kickstarter campaign, but using a trustless/ownerless escrow contract to accept and manage payments.
There is also an ease of use (for developers building these applications), particularly in terms of finances: say, an escrow that holds $1M worth of value and may need to return those funds to 100K donors across the globe should the fundraiser not meet its goals before a set deadline.
A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.
Perhaps this disruption won’t last, or won’t succeed in replacing traditional systems, but obviously in 2021 it has succeeded in capturing a lot of interest & discussion (and a lot of $ value, too).
I don’t consider “everyone is talking about it” disruption. I want to see real world implementation that goes beyond “virtual asset value goes to the moon” to be convinced.
As I said in an earlier comment: It’s been almost 13 years since the first block has been mined on the Bitcoin blockchain and the positive impact on society/economy is pretty disappointing.
https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/hicetnunc-and-the-merits-of-...
Considering NFT/Web3 only really entered public discourse in 2021, and programmable smart contracts are still nascent, I wouldn’t be so quick to write it all off.
I'm asking given the realities of decentralized networks: it's currently slower, more expensive and harder to do transactions using peer to peer systems (and it's a bit tough to imagine it'll ever be as fast/simple/reliable as a centralized one because of the requirement to have consensus of nodes). And also given the realities of ETH contracts: they are agreements written in code (certainly mostly by people who don't have any background or formal education in writing laws or agreements, in comparison with lawyers)
If you are concerned about price fluctuations in the cryptocurrency, you could set this contract to operate only on a stablecoin like DAI.
What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix? but more importantly what would be the governance and incentives that would prevent it from rapidly degenerating as with all other versions
Nobody is forcing people to use Facebook or any of Facebook's family of apps. I personally don't use FB or any of its apps for the last 10 years and I'm totally fine.
>What would be its building blocks? IFPS, Activitypub, XMPP, Matrix?
IP, TCP and HTTP are not going away anytime soon. Nobody really knows how would next stage of WWW look like therefore you can't even think about candidate protocols and standards.
IPFS is supposed to also be able to replace HTTP in the stack. Whether that'll succeed or not is a different discussion, but turns out people are thinking about candidate protocols and standards.
Sorry, this so unbeliably the wrong attitude. Compare with food producers, car manufacturers etc building toxic, addictive, dangerous products and being allowed free access to the market on the basis that "nobody is forcing consumers to buy their products".
The vast majority of people cannot judge whether the use of a digital product is safeguarding their interests and welfare, both individually and as a society. Unless and until there is recognition of this fundamental fact we must acknowledge that one industry in particular has been excempted from oversight for reasons that are not doing the political class any favor.
Wrong way of looking at it. What are people going to do differently and then what technology gets us there.
Everything you listed is Web3 in my opinion. I don't think the idea is to put everything on Ethereum. It's to provide niche but critical services like DNS, identity/auth, and some connecting governance logic to other federated/distributed systems.
Compare the focus of the GNU, Mastodon, Matrix, etc. projects to blockchain world and the fundamental difference is they're not trying to create a world in which we don't trust anyone except a the idea that human nature runs on greed and can be exploited by making us have to pay (spend tokens) for everything.
If you have to pay, or someone else has to pay for something (in FOSS it is just done in a more distributed way), why use a massively corrupt and degenerate currency to do it?
This. Massive effort and talent seems to be directed towards what is intuitively a dead end: trust is something between people, not something between devices. Any protocol no matter how ingeniously crafted will be subverted when it leaves the silicon layer and hits the human layer (unless you create the ultimate dystopia where people are collared and tracked on permanent basis or something equivalent)
Nevertheless, imho the human-centric vision of computing is misfiring, losing battle after battle (from self-sovereign computing, to social media, to mobile etc) and at some point it will lose the war. Maybe the silver lining of the cryptofunded "web3" marketing onslaught for "alternatives" is to give the real-deal one more window of opportunity...
That sentence right there is when I stopped reading and realized the author doesn't understand the technology they are criticizing.
The word "plutocratic" is linked to the Wikipedia definition for Proof of Stake. PoS is not meant to increase scalability, its meant to increase efficiency and network decentralization and reduce the cost of running a validator. Switching to PoS on its own doesn't increase the ability of the network to handle more transactions or speed them up.
I've been following Stephen Diehl and he seems to have a greater understanding than most, even if he is consistently bearish on the technology and I'm not always in agreement.
I don't see the issue you are having:
adjective: plutocratic relating to or characterized by government by the wealthy.
Proof of stake (PoS) protocols are a class of consensus mechanisms for blockchains that work by selecting validators in proportion to their quantity of holdings in the associated cryptocurrency.
> The word "plutocratic" is linked to the Wikipedia definition for Proof of Stake.
> PoS is not meant to increase scalability
carlosdp isn't saying "because PoS isn't plutocratic, the claim 'can only scale by becoming plutocratic by using PoS' doesn't hold", Rather, carlosdp is saying that "because PoS isn't the thing being proposed for scaling, but is instead for different things, the claim 'can only scale by becoming plutocratic by using PoS' doesn't hold".
You cannot increase number of transactions by just increasing the amount of electricity; it doesn't work that way.
If an intervention reduces the amount of electricity used without changing the amount of transactions that can happen, that increases the efficiency, but this does not thereby increase scalability.
So, something which reduces electricity use and hardware use, but doesn't substantially influence the amount of transactions that can go through, improves efficiency, but doesn't improve scalability.
I don’t claim to be an eth or PoS expert, but is it not the case that the transition to PoS is to lower transaction fees and prepare the network for sharding? Maybe sharding for scale is a totally separate issue, but I don’t understand why they would prioritize PoS if it wasn’t necessary for the next step of becoming a “world computer”
I don’t want to come across as too flippant, I would like to understand the optimistic viewpoint.
Eth2.0 is supposed to be much faster than Eth1.0 anyway, they say it'll be capable of doing thousands of transactions per second (as opposed to the ~15 it is doing right now). It's partly due to the switch to PoS.
This might also bring down costs, gas fees are high because when you have only 15 transactions that can go through every second and you have thousands, millions of transactions requested every minute... well, a lot of pressure is built and that pressure is reflected on the gas price. But if you were to have a system that is capable of doing thousands, even hundreds of thousands of TPS then you would have very quick transactions and very high availability which would bring fees down.
Really, the only people that don't want POS are miners, a node in Eth2.0 is meant to be run on any home set up. Even a laptop, the most important part is for it to never go down.
By parallel validators, do you mean more validators for each block of the... beacon chain(?) or, do you mean like as validators on different shards?
As you can see I haven’t been keeping up with the details
I am no fan of conning people out of their money, and there is plenty of that. But when people talk shit about web3 they sound as ignorant as people do when they talked shit about the early internet. You think gas fees are high? I remember when 56k was fast, and now look where we are (5G). Especially when a person, who I'd presume is intelligent enough to code and write such a piece, should know better: if you want to pick a fight with web3, at least pick a real enemy and not contribute to the FUD that web3 already has enough of.
Author should have looked into Dfinity's ICP as it is blockchain technology implemented not as a financial fad or for trendy hype (or even to try and resolve settlement layer solutions), but as a technological basis empowering developers to utilize this new technology we have (blockchain) to build and connect the world with it.
*On an unrelated note, I also find it disappointment that while developers are smart people, they haven't yet figured out how to organize collectively. Ironic and tragic that the gains of the social and labor rights movements translated into the luxury of wealth, time and opportunity for a generation of kids to grow up and have the ability to disrupt entire economic industries, but still are either self centered (or don't know any better) to a make difference in raising precedent the rest of the world deals with. How many software developers do you know that have been encouraged, maybe even unknowingly, to burnout (literally abusing their developer's own creative and productive desire) by their employers? And to think our (coders) best example of social progress is just Jobs (think different) or Musk (here's a hint: unless you plan on leaving the rest of the Earth behind, maybe focus on also improving the possible trajectories the rest of the world can get on board with).
Anyways.
Kind of hard to recognize a problem when your salary is dependent on propagating it.
There's clearly a lot going on in the space. But for someone who's at best adjacent to it, it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaffe.
Many projects start as clones of that repo.
As far as use cases are concerned the best source of information has been and always will be the community itself.
All reputable projects produce white papers and they are usually more than happy to discuss questions and concerns in their community discords / telegram.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ETHGlobal has lots of recordings of talks from their hackathons, their playlists split into different topics
https://www.radicalxchange.org/# is full of interesting discussions, organises meetups, more big picture discussions of the stuff web3/crypto is playing with
I enjoyed this conversation with Stuart Brand (of Whole Earth Catalogue) from a few years ago, it lays the ground of what then became NFTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w
https://ethereum-magicians.org/ is a more technical forum to discuss eips
https://interdependence.fm/ is a good podcast from some musicians interviewing people in the space.
https://twitter.com/dhof Dom (creator of Vine) is constantly pushing novel toys on chain, i enjoy his playful approach to making stuff less serious.
really though its a "get involved to understand" scene/subculture. if you can ignore the noise of markets/speculation/capitalism its a fun crowd poking around. Theres all sorts from content/identity/scaling/money stuff/games. it feels like playing an mmorpg. at some point it'll hit its eternal september moment but its been really great the past few years.
Also, these two evergreen articles:
- "Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain", https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...
- And the sequel, "Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future", https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustle...
Any other "learning resource" about web3 are either thinly veiled scams, or can be solved with literally any other tech with none of the problems inherent in blockchains.
But, the ideas of Web3 — building applications on top of distributed ledgers and programmable smart contracts — is rather novel, potentially paradigm-shifting, and has already exhibited some clear merits[1]. Most likely this will continue to grow as these systems become more efficient and scalable (see: Proof of Stake, zk-rollups, sharding, alt/side-chains).
[1] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/hicetnunc-and-the-merits-of-...
I get downvoted everytime here I bring it up but seriously if people tried something like Solana today compared to Ethereum I'm fairly certain they'd have a much better experience. Yeah, it's currently more centralized, but that really is minor compared to actually being able to use the ecosystem and explore what kinds of applications and products are possible on web3 without the unacceptably high costs and low tx throughputs that Ethereum as an L1 offers. It's no wonder that people are upset with web3 when their first experience is on ETH.
A fundamentally simple approach of using private keys (wallets) as identification for auth purposes is huge, and we're still really early imo as we explore the possibilities with Web3.
I'd rather go with Polygon or Arbitrum for now since it's fast, and wait until zkEVM like zkSync is out. Same with StarkNet. The quick and cheap transactions of Solana with Ethereum's decentralization is what I'm looking for, and that'll only be possible with zk rollups.
Arbitrum is pretty expensive per tx still though right? I haven't used the chain too much because the native bridge takes about a week to get funds over IIRC.
And Solana's only been down for a day like once I believe.
Even during yesterday’s crash I was able to execute trades at reasonable gas prices (<$1).
I’ve developed a couple of dapps that run on polygon, and while the docs could use some love the overall experience was pretty frictionless.
Crypto.com now supports deposit/withdraw directly to polygon making it possible to skip ETH altogether.
For bridging I recommend Relay if you are setting up on a new chain for the first time, then xpollinate for later transfers of just stables. Fees are super low to go from L2 to L2 these days.
Rabby is a really nice web wallet the replaces metamask and supports all the L2 chains by default, built by the guys at debank.
If you are looking for other bridges too I recommend checking out Synapse, they let you bridge between a good number of EVM chains and I haven't had any issues with them at all.
I don't think the local supermarket would be pleased to hear that if they were going to adopt Ethereum for shoppers to pay for their groceries, they would need to approve + switch to layers like Polygon, Arbitrum just to reduce the already high fees on ETH. Even if they did, it's still very expensive and not very fast either.
Perhaps some will tell them to use contraptions like zkSync, StarkNet etc, which are experimental and not ready to be used by 'everyone'. Therefore is not a mature solution to use right now.
Looking at which cryptocurrency is suitable today for lots of users to make fast, cheap and efficient payments for their groceries in the supermarket, it is clearly not Ethereum. There are better alternatives out there that are more useable and best suited for this; even Solana qualifies for this.
After all, everyone needs to eat.
ETH, as a base layer, is financially impractical. The native L2 solution in Arbitrum is also too expensive, I believe it's like a quarter of the cost? That is still absolutely unacceptable. Also I don't have any faith in advertised timelines or scalability solutions until they are in place, I saw slides and discussions around sharding, layering, and off-chain computation solutions like Truebit back in 2017. Fast forward to today and the system is still unusably inefficient, so yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm fairly certain that the majority of holders in ETH are treating it purely as a stock that only goes up, never moves their ETH off of the exchange (or even better it's not able to move off as it's a closed system like Robinhood), and actually are not using the ecosystem. If they were, then the average person would quickly realize how absurd it is to burn through their ETH for simple transactions.
I truly hope that the scalability solutions in development now pan out, because it will never succeed long term imo if they cannot solve this. If the scalability solution ETH proposes is simply use different chains, I'll do that, and they won't be in your ecosystem.
And the second question: what happens if you use your private key? Every website that uses password has a mechanism to reset your password. Take that feature away you'll lock out millions of users.
If you lose your private key, you're probably out of luck, but there may be some wallets / platforms that have strategies to mitigate risk, but idk to be honest. So yes, for sensitive applications it is a risk vector, however for users that are already familiar with crypto, it's not really a new risk. If you ever lose your private key or it's compromised you can lose whatever money is in that wallet.
The thing that I like about the infra personally as a solo dev is that using this for authentication for small scale applications on whatever chain I chose is really easy to set up and is a great user experience, and I'm not worried about this as an app developer as my target audience already should be vaguely familiar with how this works.
Everyone using wallets for identity equals everyone just picking a random number to represent themselves (and then classic cryptography allows you to prove to others that you know this number without revealing it).
The hard part of this is not cryptography — that is already solved quite well. It's the human side. People forget pass phrases. Or disclose them to whoever calls them and says they're from Microsoft Pass Phrase Verification Authority. People break computers they haven't backed up. People click "Yes" on security prompts, and open random mail attachments. With private keys involved, these situations are irreversibly catastrophic.
OK. This was literally 100% possible and functioned in 100% the same way a decade ago. A wallet address is just a public key for which you control the private key. Literally nothing about this requires blockchains. When you sign up for a service you say "here is my public key" and then you sign a message providing that you have the private key for that public key to authenticate in the future. Where is the blockchain?
The blockchain is involved for you to be able to make transactions and execute smart contracts, which take your wallet public key and signed message as inputs. So yeah you could use a traditional web app and the only thing you are using is this wallet for authentication purposes if you want, but most apps using this approach are going to natively interact with the blockchain, whether it's a financial app, gaming app, whatever. They're going to be inseparably part of the experience.
But this is literally the same as just "connecting my pgp public key" to some authentication service that manages this. This is no more convenient than the stuff that happens the first time I ssh into a service.
And surprise, passwords crushed this and virtually nobody uses this for consumer applications.
> but most apps using this approach are going to natively interact with the blockchain, whether it's a financial app, gaming app, whatever.
Now the story is very different. You led with "a good use of web3 technologies is auth." Now you say "yeah, auth isn't any better but you might as well do it this way given that your web3 service is using ETH for whatever other hypothetical thing."
For auth though, I agree with you. The only thing new here is that a lot of people have public/private key pairs that never had them before. Maybe this means that adoption is easier but I'm skeptical that this is a meaningful difference over existing signature-based authentication systems.
And I just wanted to say that I personally don't think the whole web will transition to this model, despite me working in the field. The current web isn't really going anywhere, I don't really have pipedreams of everything under the sun getting decentralized, but what I see is the potential for creators to make something cool and it's a neat emerging field to explore as a developer.
And one more time, just because I mentioned it in the first post, ETH is ridiculously expensive right now, but there are alternatives. It's awful for anything other than pretty minor distributed computing currently. There are some really neat projects out there that may be able to get around this by using off-chain distributed computing on ETH, there is a product that I've been meaning to test out as a dev but haven't had the chance yet as I've been focusing in learning the Solana ecosystem for the past few months instead of Ethereum. But it's an emerging space and I think we'll continue to see a lot of innovations over the years; even in the past 2 years we've seen a huge influx of innovative projects.
> Now you say "yeah, auth isn't any better but you might as well do it this way given that your web3 service is using ETH for whatever other hypothetical thing."
Edit - And I did want to reply to this actually. The value I find in this as an authentication method is it does make it incredibly easy as a developer to integrate. I've worked with SSO before that's also super easy as well, however that relies on centralization of trust in an entity such as Google. Even if it is just minor, I do like the idea of being able to provide authentication that:
1. I don't need to store passwords or handle them whatsoever
2. I don't need to rely on an external arbiter of truth such as google / facebook
I have used webauthn a bit, not as a dev, but as an end user and it's really awesome. I would imagine it's not terribly difficult to integrate and would satisfy both of those above desires for my own projects. But yes, in crypto world, might as well use the keypairs everyone already has.