Ask HN: What's Your Opinion on Web3? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What's Your Opinion on Web3?

27 pointskkcorps49 comments

My personal take is that there can be a lot of good usecases that will come out of it but I don't believe in the toppling the world order with people's revolution part of it. Also, NFTs are good usecase for digital artists but is an extremely bad buy for a normal consumer since most art is worthless in future unless you get hands on something really unique and respected like Beeple's art collection.

View on HN

I constantly wonder whether there is something I am missing about Web3. Am just too old and perhaps out of touch to understand the hype? Sometime between 2015-2019 I probably made upwards of 20.000+ manual trades with smart contracts, and even build my own dapps. I felt like a ETH/Decentralization and Web3 apostle. But everything just felt so useless to me in the end (except the easy money I was making). Nowadays, web3 feels even more useless, and even more scammy. The "use-cases" and "scarity" to me sound like some exotic products that are packaged for the gullible to waste their money in a unregulated, hyper gambling echo chamber of the internet. But of course, perhaps I am still missing the point.

You seem to have nailed it. The Web3 stuff is about making easy money by extracting it from people who think that they're also going to get easy money.

I feel like a lot of people use the term "web3" which in and of itself, doesn't convey too much information. I feel like this question should be asked within the context of web3's components:

- The ability to login to many platforms without needing to create an account on that specific platform (universal login as mentioned by others)

- Being able to use the decentralized ledger as a database -- this is currently only done with art NFTs - but could literally be done with SO much else

- Being able to create dApps that run on their own and are maintained by a community -- i.e., apps that don't pit the user incentives against the incentives for the company owning the apps (dating apps are a good example of this)

- Decentralized storage. Not keeping everything in S3 -- not saying this is better for in-production, but just mentioning with web3 - people are finally open to this type of thing as opposed to just saying "let's just host it on S3".

- Community. As corny and overused as this word is, I know. But specifically finding a project, hopping on their Discord, contributing, asking questions, etc.

Web3 is as much an ethos as it is a "specific thing". It's a rejection of the walled-garden, data hoarding techniques of past platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Google, etc) and a recognition that there is enough pie for a lot of smaller, more niche teams to have a piece.

I agree, Web3 is a buzzword with little meaning. The features I am most looking forward to are:

1. Self-owned storage. I would love it if I could make and use apps where the users owned the storage (in a convenient way). This means that running apps is basically free and you don't have the legal pain of controlling user data. It also means that users can export their data (the just need to figure out how to interpret it).

2. Decentralized hosting. I think it would be amazing if you could keep using sites even if the original host went offline. IPFS is making good strides here. For example if you like my first player chooser you can pin /ipfs/QmWBUag1ynHaZekVHyr1VfMgF6fh64PPP46oiNYCgCPCQK and use it forever. This combined with 1 means that you can keep using apps without any creator involvement.

These two feel so close that they could be used today. There are efforts, but at least for 1 not much is really sticking.

The above 2 are all about single-user data though. Combining data for multiple users like many of your other points reference would be super cool but is a much harder problem, particularly around security and privacy. I think that will be full "Web3" but I see us as a long way off.

> - The ability to login to many platforms without needing to create an account on that specific platform (universal login as mentioned by others)

Dude, how come no one is talking about this instead of cryptocurrency and NFT FOMO bullshit? That's actually useful. When do we get that?

Is it actually useful?

It saves people from needing to create passwords for each service if they don't use a password manager while also eliminating SSO as a data collection mechanism for major internet companies. That's not nothing, but the entirety of this is achieved by signature based authentication, which has existed for years and years but has achieved basically zero adoption.

It is obviously useful, and indeed it could be implemented by readily available methods. If "Web3" was really about getting that done, making the adoption actually happen, I think I'd be a lot less inclined to think the whole thing is just hype-based scams.

Like IndieLogin/IndieAuth?

Do you really want the same key to every door?

If the alternative is a different key for every door, yes. There's no reason it has to be strictly one key for everybody, but I don't need separate keys for most of the things I do online. I'm ok having my bank take one key and all my streaming services take a different one.

Isn’t this Google Login, which is already present in many online services?

I still haven't heard a good reason.

I hear ideas from gamers and anti-big-tech folks, but none of it really sounds all that useful. But I'm also the kind of person who prints off their boarding pass at the airport because I prefer having a reliable piece of paper to get me on the plane.

Cryptocurrency and blockchains aside, I feel like if folks really cared about public authentication and proof of identity, then something like Keybase would be far more popular than it is. So idk, I've not been convinced yet.

It’s a dystopian vision that would make the internet worse for 95% of its users. Only thing it would do is bring the worst attributes of the physical world into the digital one.

People arguing that it could be a counter to the centralization of “web 2.0” should really be pushing for open source software that you can run locally on your computer and is free and abundant for everyone to use, instead of pushing for an inefficient distributed system that forces scarcity in the digital realm. Worst problem with the introduction of Ajax and Web 2.0 was the shift from owning and running desktop software to the “cloud” and Saas subscriptions where things you depend on could go away or be changed underneath you at any moment.

I like NFTs, but not art NFTs. Having NFTs represent actual in-game assets with unique stats that can be used across different games in a permissionless way, seems like a way to empower gamers as we buy more and more digital-only items.

I also like the idea of NFTs as game licenses. If the XBOX uses something like an Ethereum address as your XBOX account, it can verify what games you own by checking if you own the NFT that represents that game’s license. At that point, even if XBOX live shuts down support for XBOX 360 games in 20 years, my 360 will still be able to play any game I have the media for (ex: digital game copy on a USB drive).

I also like the idea of universal login using Ethereum addresses. I don’t want my identity to be owned by Microsoft, Google, Apple, of Facebook. I’d rather it be something I own (a public/private key pair) along with some known place to store attestations about who I am and what I can do (a blockchain). Those attestations could be stored off-chain, but that becomes difficult for users to maintain and program.

Why is it a good idea that your logins hinge on a regulation-free bank account? What happens if you lose your key?

I know there are some people who genuinely believe that's a perfectly fine risk and that it's entirely your fault to live with the consequences if you lose the key.

You can easily create as many wallets as you'd like, and keep your funds isolated from a wallet you use as an identity, if you wanted. There are multi-key wallets out there as well to retain control of your wallet in the event that one of the keys are compromised. I haven't used any of those personally myself so I can't really elaborate more on those types of wallets, but it feels like being able to lower risk is a solvable problem.

Solvable, but how much more complex than today's methods? Most people can't understand these systems and are hesitant to adopt

>Having NFTs represent actual in-game assets with unique stats

That's a private blockchain in hiding, since the relation of the NFT to the asset must be mediated by modifiable game code, at which point the dev could practically reassign ownership within their game world.

Private blockchains of course make no sense. But trying to find new ways to exploit gamers with microtransactions is always popular with some companies.

>I also like the idea of NFTs as game licenses.

Ultimately, the issue is that Xbox Live might want to shut down support, and could do that rather directly even with NFTs. If there was enough commercial pressure to not do that, this problem is trivial to solve with a permanent licence.

>I also like the idea of universal login using Ethereum addresses. I don’t want my identity to be owned by Microsoft, Google, Apple, of Facebook.

The various federated solutions achieve this without a blockchain. It's possible though to see blockchain 'winning' here - it won't be because of any technical advantage, but rather because it was made more available than other solutions.

Web3 is basically synonymous with defi right now, but I agree, there's a lot of potential in the next few years/decades.

I'm fed up with institutions like Facebook having unchecked control over who uses their platform when so much digital infrastructure is built on it. I realize it's not a popular idea with the HN crowd, but I think a revolution is coming, with decentralized tech at the forefront. Like it or not, most decentralized tech has seen very limited adoption, and an inability to compensate nodes seems to be a contributor to that.

Greed is a really good motivator for people to step out of their comfort zones a little bit, and has clearly been driving adoption of technology that previously was hard to get people to adopt

if the major motivator is greed but not the intrinsic value of the tech, don't you think this is terribly broken?

When has adoption of anything ever been driven by the general audience's interest in technology?

edit: I misunderstood your post to be addressing the lack of interest in the tech, not suggesting it wasn't valuable. I wasn't suggesting there's no value to crypto and web3 tech though (I think there is... a lot), just that people are typically reluctant to embrace tech that might offer benefits (such as movement away from gated monopolies who don't face repercussions for abusing their power) when there is a significant learning curve. Being motivated by potential profit seems to have motivated people to learn more about decentralized technology than typically would.

I think it's a really neat space to explore and love the idea of provable digital ownership. There's a lot of projects in the space that are interesting ideas, and it is fascinating to see parts of the web stack increasingly decentralized. Whether or not it will be a long term success, who knows. It's a fascinating field to work in, and has given me motivation to run some creative independent ventures that I wouldn't have otherwise. For NFTs there's much more you can do with them than in the current model, and we'll see more increasingly complex and unique usecases from NFT projects in the coming year I'm certain.

Although it is fascinating to see more parts of the webstack increasingly decentralized, I also do not fully buy into the "decentralize everything" ideology that some people in the space have. Some people may not call projects "web3" if they run on traditional infra like AWS, but there is absolutely value in a hybrid model in my mind that leverages a decentralized ledger for proof of digital ownership on top of more traditional infra. I don't think for instance that making a platform to replace existing web2 websites like twitter / FB / your favorite website is the way to look at it, but rather to figure out new ideas and products, maybe fully decentralized, maybe not. To me it doesn't matter, I just want unique, streamlined user experiences that provide value to users who want to participate in the ecosystem. Even if it is just a small community, it's fun.

It will be 5+ years before we can tell it was just a fad or something real. Web 2 was also a flash based hype in it's time like this. However, the architectural and incentive changes are very big with web 3.

Like ipv4 to ipv6, I think small and meaningful feature additions compounding over time are practical whereas resteucturing entire ecosystems has a risk of a slow and inefficient adoption rate

> It will be 5+ years before we can tell it was just a fad or something real.

Have you ever said this about something, and then five years later, it wasn't a fad?

Sure! At least for me, this applied to the original web, mobile computing, Linux, Twitter, VR, Bitcoin, etc, etc, etc...

If you accept Android as Linux, which I do, then it's now the world's most common platform. If you don't, it's worth noting that 80% of the Steam library now works on Linux.

Twitter ... I dunno, seems pretty popular

I agree with you significantly on VR, and am annoyed at myself for not thinking of that.

I hope you're right about bitcoin. I suspect you are.

Yes, Macromedia flash and web 2 , iphones.

Artificial scarcity is artificial.

Nothing prevents someone from making copies or selling copies that they don't own / have copyright rights over.

You’re talking about the current iteration of art NFTs; not Web3.

The rest of web3 are solutions in search of problems.

web3 runs on top of web2 and is therefore subject to all of the forces that affect and control web2 plus the "get rich quick" elements of web3.

I’m aware there’s no shortage of snake-oil marketing that will tell you otherwise but if it runs on top of web2 it doesn’t classify as web3 in my book.

>> if it runs on top of web2 it doesn’t classify as web3 in my book.

Then web3 providers need to buy their own hardware and data centers instead of using web2 cloud infrastructure:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdnxy/amazons-server-outage...

https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/coinbase-down-a...

https://decrypt.co/44321/70-of-ethereum-nodes-are-hosted-on-...

You’re not wrong. Or at the very least:

- Software needs to be built and distributed with local-first in mind. Self-hosting should be trivial, encouraged and accommodated for. Preferably transparently to the user. (Self-hosting a web browser and its built in password manager is already something people do, as a silly example of why it doesn’t have to be a worse UX). In the example of a “dapp”, this could mean the web app in source-available (not necessarily “real open source”) and provided as a zip file ready to run in a local browser and/or electron app. Possibly via IPFS or similar. It should not depend on phone-home to any particular hard-coded server, domain, or SaaS.

- For stuff that is hosted in DCs, opt for smaller providers. Get infrastructure, not SaaS. Ie avoid managed services in AWS/GCP/Azure/Ali, instead get VMs or servers with someone else.

In my view it is likely to be a financial success at least over the medium term precisely because it will disempower everyone who's not a substantial capital owner and promises to put very strong ownership validation tools in the hands of those who are.

If you want a distributed system that empowers end users, you're better off dusting off your favourite bittorrent client.

NFTs in particular are essentially just distributed DRM. Though in practice it will likely be circumnavigable for all cases other than verifying ownership on a block chain just like contemporary DRM is today.

But ultimately "Web3" looks to empower capital owners above anyone else, who are already massively empowered. So you have to wonder what the point is other than as a get rich quick scheme for delirious libertarians.

The same forces of wealth based accumulation that exist in the current internet/web will come into fruition in the Web3 world precisely because it is the most powerful centralising force on the internet and does nothing to address this.

Investors desperately want a rotation into a new technology so they can get in on the ground floor of something.

To that end, they are taking blockchain technology that trades unbelievably terrible efficiency for distributed and trustless computing and applying it to everything.

While there are some use cases where this might be a worthwhile tradeoff (voting, for example), it’s a really bad tradeoff for almost everything else we use the internet for today.

I feel that it has potential for some interesting use-cases but that hype is overshadowing clear thinking at the moment.

A lot of the benefits either don't really exist like supporters say they do, or are actually gotchas.

In brief

* single point of failure

* false sense of privacy

* false sense of ownership

* currentlt only for the rich due to costs

I outlined my thoughts here;

https://www.riknieu.com/web3-downsides/

Ask again when interest rates are at 4%.

There is nothing actual web3. It's just a meaningless term used by snake oil salesmen

What is web3 exactly? Is it about world wide web or crypto?

Can't help but pay attention to the recent conversations over the last 3 days between Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, Chris Dixon, Marc Andreessen, and Balaji amongst others. True decentralization and blockchain enabled business models are fascinating.

NFTs are like art collection, without the exclusivity or actual ownership. It's a good deal for artists (yay, money for nothing!) but an extremely bad buy for customers, who will probably eventually grow out of it.

> NFTs are like art collection, without the exclusivity or actual ownership.

NFTs are art certification of ownership collection without tying to exclusivity of possession of the art. Or, unfortunately, particularly trustworthy certification.

> NFTs are art certification of ownership collection

Not really, no

NFTs are just worthless garbage. The assumption here is that the piece of "art" is unique because of the Hash on a Chain. But thats simply a lie, I can simply copying the image. The difference to real world is that in the real world copying is not a 1:1 copy, its just a the same till a certain percentage.

If you integrate it in some game or in the metaverse its still worthless, because you are just a consumer that participates in artifical shortage of a product thats copyable with a simple click.

Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa. There are millions of copies, but you are the only one that actually owns the original.

That said, I still cannot wrap my head around owning some "art" in the digital world.

> Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa.

Except it isn't. That's just something someone says to get you to open your wallet.

At the end of the day, you don't actually own the thing being named.

> Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa.

It's more like if you would own a certificate (very likely of dubious provenance itself) saying that you owned the original of the Mona Lisa, which certificate also listed the address at which the actual original is stored, in case anyone wanted to see what you “owned”.

But that makes a less-enticing pro-NFT argument.

The only reasonable argument I've heard for this NFT nonsense actually goes something like this: Let's say there's an indie game developer who doesn't believe in DRM, and they sell you a game. What have you actually bought, given that you could have copied that game from anywhere? Why did you buy it?

Answering these questions, then answering them for NFTs almost makes it all makes sense. I say almost because, of course, they don't need a fucking blockchain to do any of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com