Comment by JSavageOne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JSavageOne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is one of the weakest criticisms to web3 I've seen. Shocked that this is on the front page of HN. Literally every point here has already been talked about and debunked.

> Web3 Platforms are Centralized

The blockchain itself is decentralized, and you don't have to use centralized platforms.

> Mining is Centralized

Sure mining is not as decentralized as we'd like it to be, but it is unquestionably less centralized than the alternative.

> Environmental concerns

Look into "Proof of Stake"

> Blockchain Sucks, Period

Blockchain works very well for its intended applications actually. For example, Ukraine just raised $54 million through crypto. The article doesn't even attempt to construct an argument, so there's nothing to address.

> Blockchain is not the way to decentralization. We need a hyper-efficient system that takes minimal computing resources to scale to a whole planet of users, while making it easy for newcomers to join the network.

Looking forward to your whitepaper on your superior alternative to a blockchain. Until then, we'll stick to blockchains for their intended use cases.

Honestly this article and the comments section is an embarrassment. You guys should actually research what you're criticizing. HN has been anti-crypto since crypto was invented, at this point over a decade later maybe it's time to have some humility and admit that you guys were wrong, and that maybe this thing is actually worth attempting to understand lest you want to continue to be on the wrong side of history

> and you don't have to use centralized platforms.

Sure, but you'd be missing out on the benefits of the blockchain. Who will buy your paint monkey image certificate of authenticity - let alone pay a small fortune for it - if you put it up for sale on your own website instead of the big exchange where all the whales scout for their next target to over-inflate? You're right in theory, but market forces push towards centralization.

> but it is unquestionably less centralized than the alternative.

This is true, but the alternative has (literal) checks and balances, fallbacks, and legal forces in place to ensure supply and stability of the currency.

> For example, Ukraine just raised $54 million through crypto. The article doesn't even attempt to construct an argument, so there's nothing to address.

And billions in international foreign and military aid through non-crypto means; it's pocket change pushed by cryptobros that want to promote their money-making scheme.

> Looking forward to your whitepaper on your superior alternative to a blockchain.

Traditional banking. Traditional banking and fiat money is good. I mean nobody actually pays anything with crypto because of inconvenience, transfer costs, speed and value instability; it's an asset used to convert from / to fiat money, it's an investment product, it's a ledger of certificates for poorly drawn or generated jpegs.

And it's argumentative comments like this that make me resent it more and more. The only success stories and practical applications for crypto and blockchain technology I've heard is people getting rich off it. The libertarian dream; the freedom to weasel money out of easily hyped people without having to pay taxes over it.

And you know I'm salty because like everybody else, "I should've bought bitcoin ten years ago".

> And billions in international foreign and military aid through non-crypto means

That doesn't invalidate crypto

> Traditional banking and fiat money is good

With flaws that crypto solves

> nobody actually pays anything with crypto because of inconvenience, transfer costs, speed and value instability

False, there are merchants that accept payments in crypto and stablecoins. Though it is true that asset transfers are currently the more prominent use case for crypto than everyday transactions.

> it's an asset used to convert from / to fiat money, it's an investment product, it's a ledger of certificates for poorly drawn or generated jpegs.

Ok, and what's the problem? There are many other applications for crypto you didn't address that could be found in any "intro to web3" article. Also dismissing NFTs as just "a ledger of certificates for poorly drawn or generated jpegs" shows you've done literally zero research on NFTs. There's more to NFTs than pictures of monkeys.

> The only success stories and practical applications for crypto and blockchain technology I've heard is people getting rich off it

That's because you haven't done any research on what you're dismissing.

If you have to do so much of your own research to finally find a useful use case for crypto or grasp the genius concept behind NFT. If no one can understand why it is so revolutionary. Is it maybe that there is nothing to be found behind the artificial complexity? Something so revolutionary should be easy to understand. The concept of Internet was easy to understand (fast communication, availability of information,...) the complexity lay in understanding the scale and the pace at which the problem would be technically solved.

> The concept of Internet was easy to understand (fast communication, availability of information,...)

Not really - I think you're introducing hindsight bias. This famous David Letterman clip with Bill Gates is pretty representative of the population's poor understanding of the benefits of the Internet. This clip was from just over a decade after the Internet was invented, so roughly the same amount of time that we are right now since the concept of distributed ledger technology was invented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gipL_CEw-fk

Reply on news.ycombinator.com