Hacker News Reader

Comment by john_the_writer | Hacker News Reader

That's just it. The only people who truly used it were scammers.

There is no real world use for WEB3 or NFT. Storage is expensive and the carbon footprint is nuts. It's not faster and it's not more secure. It can be hacked and it's not decentralised (ask Canadian Truckers about how safe their bitcoin was from government intervention)

People keep bringing back Amway, that doesn't mean it's not scammer rubbish.

View on HN

The carbon footprint is no longer nuts. Ethereum went to proof of stake last year, which has a cloud-like carbon footprint.

Only bitcoin still has an insane carbon footprint.

Yes, now Ethereum is a security because it went PoS and it promises yields for staking.

But Bitcoin still consumes electricity of an entire small country.

I don't think there is no real world application for Web3 or NFTs, that seems pretty short sighted. Sure, there are scams, but legit innovations as well. I mean, the MoMA liquidated 70 million USD in art, including a Picasso, to buy NFTs.

I'd be interested to see what the NFTs MOMA bought are worth now. The NFT market is a fraction of the size it was during the highs of 2021.

Most NFTs lost 90%+ of value. People are finally waking up to the fact that the jpeg is still stored in a centralized server - often controlled by the NFT issuer. When the NFT issuer shuts down, so does your NFT. Now your NFT points to a broken URL.

Most are on IPFS, but about 10% are 100% on-chain

IPFS is too slow. Imagine trying to load 1,000 images from IPFS. People won't tolerate it. Hence, IPFS cannot scale.

On-chain also can't scale because you're not suppose to put something like a JPEG on the blockchain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com