Another HNer made a good point recently: Compute power is nearing post scarcity. Web3 is people trying to make it scarce again.
Another HNer made a good point recently: Compute power is nearing post scarcity. Web3 is people trying to make it scarce again.
This is a constant issue I have with crypto advocates. Most of the use cases can be done with crypto, but also with other techs (sometimes it's as simple as "we need a database for this"). But there's never a serious analysis of why those use cases have not been covered with previous tech, and when you point out that there might be issues other than the tech then you get labeled as a "crypto hater". And I wouldn't care too much if random people called you a hater, but when all crypto people label dissent as "haters" it makes me think it's like a cult where all you need to do is believe.
It would be like the gold standard all over again.
It's free money to them, why not?
I know write you an IOU for 1 bitcoin, and you buy a car with that IOU, because anyone who owns that IOU can come to me and get their bitcoin, and everybody knows that I am good for my money, because that is the whole condition of this thought experiment.
I now write another IOU and give to my uncle, who buys a house with it, because everybody knows I'm good for it.
Now the money supply has increased, without minting new bitcoins, and this is exactly what happened to gold (which, as you know as well as anybody, you can't just print)
But blockchains do introduce a technical capability that never existed before: shared, “trustless” access to and control over data.
Previously, you could run your own webserver, your own email server, etc, and you could trust your own data, but other people collaborating with you would need to trust you to manage that data, and trust that you hadn’t manipulated the data in some way. What if they don’t know you well enough to trust you?
Sure, other people could keep their own copy of that same data, and sync with you somehow, but most pre-blockchain data services lack replication capability out of the box, and as far as I know there are no non-blockchain data services that can give you any assurances at all that data has not been tampered with.
And on top of the issue of trust is the issue of network size. If you personally know who you want to collaborate with, you can share a single server, but what if you want open collaboration and discovery to be part of the application?
Federated application services capable of competing with big tech have been a dream and an objective of open-source advocates for decades, but no one has been able to deliver. I would say the major reason is because trustless data syncing at scale is orders of magnitude harder than running a single standalone server, and all of the solutions until web3 attempted to perform data syncing at the application layer—which means a lot of duplicated effort, and almost zero opportunity for reuse between projects.
Blockchain tech moves replication and tampering protection to the data layer, as a generalized service that is relatively trivial to set up. The promise of web3 is that shared-data applications can be built on top of that data layer in the same way that complex centralized applications can be built on well-defined centralized data layers like the file system and the relational database.
A robust and abstracted data layer allows application developers to spend more time thinking about application logic and less time thinking about data.
I don’t think blockchains control access over data at all without the integration of other technologies (i.e. using public key authentication to prove to some third-party service that you hold a key that performed a blockchain transaction). They only control permissions to update things on-chain and everything on the chain is still publicly readable anyway. PKI is capable of doing the same thing and has existed for a very long time.
> Sure, other people could keep their own copy of that same data, and sync with you somehow, but most pre-blockchain data services lack replication capability out of the box, and as far as I know there are no non-blockchain data services that can give you any assurances at all that data has not been tampered with.
Look at the existing NFT mess. The problem here is that the blockchain _doesn’t_ replicate anything other than a bit of metadata for these types of applications — the content still has to be stored elsewhere, often on a classic web server which is centralised and can go down any time.
If you want an example of something that replicates data and guarantees integrity then look at IPFS.
> Federated application services capable of competing with big tech have been a dream and an objective of open-source advocates for decades, but no one has been able to deliver. I would say the major reason is because trustless data syncing at scale is orders of magnitude harder than running a single standalone server, and all of the solutions until web3 attempted to perform data syncing at the application layer—which means a lot of duplicated effort, and almost zero opportunity for reuse between projects.
Blockchain’s answer to “federation is hard” is just to replicate the entire chain to all participants and have all participants repeat the exact same work to arrive at the same position. This is not exactly a glamouring success story of how to avoid “duplicated effort” — in fact, duplicated effort is a fundamental part of the blockchain architecture.
> Blockchain tech moves replication and tampering protection to the data layer, as a generalized service that is relatively trivial to set up. The promise of web3 is that shared-data applications can be built on top of that data layer in the same way that complex centralized applications can be built on well-defined centralized data layers like the file system and the relational database.
This isn’t really true though — it’s more like the blockchain provides a tamperproof metadata store. Putting actual quantities of information onto a typical blockchain is either prohibitively expensive computationally (it needs to be replicated everywhere) or prohibitively expensive financially (Ethereum gas costs as an example).
I don't think you can fully replicate a general database in blockchain, at least not to any decent performance/size level. And interacting with the blockchain will always be more complex than interacting with your own database. A blockchain app will always take more developer resources than a non-blockchain app.
Also, another problem with federated services is money. In a centralized app, one party controls the app and can exploit it for money and use that money to pay developers. They can even run at a loss the first years to create a good product until they start making money. With federated apps, it's harder to invest and blockchain doesn't change the fact that people don't like to pay for services they have gotten for free previously. Crowdfunding existed before too and not too many projects got enough to even start.
The third point is... people just don't care about decentralized/centralized. So insisting on going blockchain is a technology choice that's probably not going to bring you too many users (other than fans of the tech) and it's going to cost you more developer time. It doesn't make too much sense.
But that's not a new capability. You can do that with existing tech. At most, it seems to me, what blockchains introduce is convenience, but it comes with a pretty heavy cost in terms of computational resources.
This [1] is one of the projects I have my eye on in this space but there is many that are starting to get to work now that a lot of the technical issues around Oracles are being sorted out.
1. https://www.betdex.com/ * No affiliation
I suppose there are ways to gamble exclusively using the blockchain, but I don’t think sports betting is among them.
Then consider that people are tackling the issue of decentralized oracles. The most common platform for that is Chainlink [1]. In this space specifically, Augur [2] is among those who has attempted to make decentralized sports reporting Oracles. I'm not sure if their solution is fully fleshed out, but regardless it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable technical issue for something that is as easy to verify as outcome of a game.
If your willing to accept that the Oracle problem will be solved, I'm not sure how you would say this doesn't create value for consumers.
1.https://chain.link/education/blockchain-oracles 2. https://augur.net/
Of course I’m aware that there are attemps to incentivize oracle providers to play fairly (and even “decentralize” oracles), but I don’t quite see how it can be definitively resolved. Not saying it’s impossible, but I just don’t see it (or understand it) yet.
How can you not think: well, if this is how much of Hollywood works now, isn't that proof that you don't need a blockchain for it?!
It also disregards that loads of projects/works are not "how Hollywood works".
Capitalism can only work with scarcity to monetize. With scarcity nearing an end, there's now two camps:
* those that are excited for the post-scarcity future where we can freely share data and culture
* those who are deeply bought into capitalist ideology and who are terrified of capitalism ending with scarcity.
The first group hates all the crypto stuff because it's a technological attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and undo the progress we've made in eliminating scarcity. The second group hails crypto as their savior and thinks it will revolutionize everything by reintroducing scarcity everywhere, giving capitalism a life line. I think that's the core disconnect.
Despite all the claims from crypto advocates about crypto freeing us from existing power structures, I think the truth is actually the opposite.
Crypto entrenches existing power structures, where capital = power. You can see that formalized in various decentralized organizations where votes are allocated by token count, or in other words, more capital means more power.
Crypto is an effort to preserve the status quo, not to change it. If the "web3" were to succeed, moneyed interests would still be controlling everything, with the only change being that some early crypto adopters would also rise to their level. Crypto advocacy comes down to an attempt to rise to the ruling class by serving it, not to topple it.
Nearing? 99.9% of the Internet content I care about is pure text.
In quantities could be served and stored on SBC or a phone from 10 years ago.
Think of text messaging, IM rooms, forums like HN or mailing lists, activitypub.
Do the math around how much text a person can consume in a day and how much data can a SBC handle in a day.
A $0.80 microcontroller would get you pretty far.
This gives me the initial dropbox dismissal comment (you can do it trivially with ftp) vibe...