A bit boring seeing those lopsided anti-crypto/web3 comments at the top of HN so regularly. Those who entered crypto markets during the boom have already been burnt severely, that should be all the warning they need. I don't even disagree with many of the critiques, but I think they don't acknowledge some merits that web3 actually has. The ability to host open source web services pretty much indefinitely (with or without maintenance) after initial deployment is interesting, especially for hackers.
The fact that a ridiculously high percentage of current projects may be scams doesn't negate that, it's not an uncommon phenomenon with dissemination technologies (printing presses were also used to disseminate outrageous propaganda lies).
The more interesting critique is that web3 tends to 'financialize everything'. I can see what's meant there and I wouldn't even contest that there is such a tendency. I can also see why people would be opposed to that, but I think that argument misses what's already happening. Facebook, gmail, Google Maps, pdf-merge,... may be mostly free for users, but their data is heavily monetized by the companies providing those services, with little to no transparency. Web3 can shift the pendulum of economic power a little bit (not fully, as maybe claimed by some enthusiasts) in the direction of users again. Public databases, anyone can build frontends for popular services, no need for rate-limited APIs when building on top of other projects,... I can see why FAANG shareholders should be opposed to that, but not why there seems to be such fundamental opposition on HN.
Could you give an example of a successful and useful web3 implementation? Because I look around, and all I see are grifters, scams and pyramid schemes. There must be some examples of something useful and popular that has been built, if it's such a revolutionary technology?
Aave is an overcollateralized lending protocol with immutable code and a front end hosted on IPFS. That's fairly (not fully) close to providing a 'code-and-forget', public-goods-like web service. Liquity is an overcollateralized stablecoin that doesn't even have an own front end, but has a parameter in the protocol that front end providers can use to set their rewards. Both have also weathered the recent crashes pretty well.
I don't know what most of those words mean, but I do know that Aave is not being used in any popular sense, beyond people speculating that the price of the token increases. I was hoping someone would provide a link to a "popular and useful" example.
Lending is a financial service and undeniably useful. In fact, chances are high that you've used loans in some form yourself already. Overcollateralized means that the value of the collateral is greater than the loan value, as is common for eg mortgages in 'traditional' finance.
I don't have usage statistics, but they're definitely not insignificant.
>> There must be some examples of something useful and popular that has been built, if it's such a revolutionary technology?
That’s a very high bar. There are lots of fun web2 websites that are useless, fun and used by a few people. Also, useful is highly subjective. For example if you are into NFT’s you might find OpenSea popular and useful. If you are not, then you won’t.
Ease off the throttle a bit man, I'm not sure what the hostility is about.
Of course I don't think that, like I said that was a very one-dimensional example. Of course many things work well for many people. But I imagine different professionals have very different idea of what constitutes "useful" on the internet.
I guess I just poorly communicated my point, it's whatever. Not like I'm dying on this hill here.
> I think they don't acknowledge some merits that web3 actually has. The ability to host open source web services pretty much indefinitely (with or without maintenance) after initial deployment is interesting, especially for hackers.
How is this possible, exactly? Which Web3-specific innovation enables this?
P2P file hosting has been around for decades, but that's not a "web" and it's barely a "service".
> it's not an uncommon phenomenon with dissemination technologies (printing presses were also used to disseminate outrageous propaganda lies)
The promise and value of printing presses was immediately obvious. It automated a manual process that people had previously done painstakingly slowly for hundreds of years.
Web3 does not automate any manual process (or any process at all) that people were previously doing.
> Web3 can shift the pendulum of economic power a little bit (not fully, as maybe claimed by some enthusiasts) in the direction of users again.
Web3 and blockchain have not democratized anything. They've centralized power into secretive whales and project backers. Try to find a major crypto project that doesn't have names like A16z and Saudi Arabia among its backers.
Big banks are in on it, too. I don't know why anyone would expect opposition from existing financial players, rather than an attempt to buy and control these projects.
I'll give a simple example: think of an escrow service. It's clear that it provides some value, it's easy to code up and audit, and it actually needs the blockchain (so that the code is inevitably open source, and you know that that's the code you're interacting with).
It may not be fully trustless, but at least for technically savvy users it can reduce the extent of trust required sufficiently to make it sane to do OTC transactions (it's very unlikely someone would try and succeed in reorganizing the blockchain for a small transaction; the code might have backdoors, but such a simple service isn't too hard to audit - fully open source code is a tough environment for backdoors).
You're sick of seeing lopsided/anti-crypto on HN? Seriously? I'm sick of 'rational and levelheaded' people saying they're sick of hearing HN be anti-crypto, but then failing to address the problems with crypto. Its the same shit every time. There's at least three of these comments below yours.
To recap, here's a quick summary of why anti crypto keeps getting voted up.
Environmental impact scales faster than existing monetary system and does not plateau.
The subsequent incentives to use fossil fuels.
Consolidation of authority via proof of stake and proof of work mechanisms.
Lack of regulation and insurance.
The impact that NFTs have had on the space (and similarly, the security issues of smart contracts).
If one of these points isn't in an article, they don't stop being a consensus concern.
P.s. Saying 'I want a discussion and people are being too rude/biased' is a transparent reframing and that WILL contribute to people being hostile.
* environmental impact can (and is being) addressed technically. Bitcoin doesn't even have (Turing-complete) smart contracts and web3 can exist without it (or PoW in general)
* lack of regulation isn't the tech's fault, and is also being addressed
* consolidation of authority: agreed, that is critical. But it's not worse than the current web. A handful of players can decide to effectively take down any project, and that also happens. Web3 does not fix it to the extent people claim / hope because of this concentration, but it's not worse
* impact of NFTs - What do you mean? Most NFTs are just hyperlinks that provide very little in the sense of uniqueness of whatever resource they're pointing to, I agree. But NFTs can be implemented differently, and anyway, the existence of problematic use cases doesn't negate other use cases.
Re: environment being addressed - is it? I have yet to see any actual evidence it's improving or that it's going to with reasonable assumption. The only thing I've heard are assurances. Can you point to a mainstream source (or project proposal)? All I have seen is that it scales WAY faster than traditional finance and that the increasing blockchain useage is incentivising oil and coal plants in China and Russia. These seem pretty damning. Proof of Stake doesn't help enough here.
Lack of regulation not being the tech's fault doesn't really make a difference. Its the same argument as 'gums don't shoot people, people holding guns shoot people'. The issue is still fundamentally about what to do with respect to the object the person is using.
Re the consolidation not being worse: hard disagree. This is measurably worse because there is now a second order of ownership beyond the usual social conventions established. It is an opportunity to financialise and gatekeep further. Additionally, those same big-player actors are not restricted from starting their own cryptocurrency or NFT related venture, then incentivising their userbase to do it. This is a common trick in software (a common example: Facebook or Uber and their app pop ups pointing you to their other apps). I think you are operating on the assumption that crypt I currencies are dictatorship-resistant, which I don't think reflects reality. There are lots of examples of cryptocurrency project decisions coming from above. A banal example: leader-led forking is not uncommon. See bitcoin and ethereum for popular instances of that.
Impact of NFTs: NFTs have a wide range of issues associated so this could be its own conversation easily, but the issues that come to mind immediately are the incentive to steal assets (legal ownership and blockchain ownership are not the same thing), lack of underlying value (as an asset, they're widely agreed to be highly risky for low expected return), their exposure to gas prices, the fact the hyperlink is the only thing 'immortalised' on the blockchain, meaning they're actually MORE fragile than regular assets in practical outcomes, 'gifted' malware that cannot be rejected, the architectural incoherence of smart contract apps, and many more.
Regarding the suggestion that problematic use cases does not negate positive use cases: well I think it depends on how good and how bad the respective cases are, and comparing that to the alternative of none of them. All of the use cases I've seen for smart contracts are either outright scams or at best very poor value propositions. I think this idea that 'the good should not have to capitulate to the needs of the bad' is somewhat adolescent and doesn't really reflect the real world. No one makes business decisions like this, even in software.
A more explicit refutation is this: if the people who participate in the community of the technology don't actually address the issues surrounding it, who should? Most people outside the community would say that the community should resolve the issue and any inaction looks bad, because it indicates a lack of social caution.
One last thing: I think its important to assess the intent behind project leaders. People like Vitalik B propose some very unpleasant uses for the block chain (he has on record suggested storing medical records on chain is a possible use - which is a very insecure and obtuse solution to the problem of internal medical record storage) and some very warped worldviews. Giving him control of a value mechanism seems bizarre at best as actively damaging at worst. Vitalik is not the only one with issues of course, but I would argue he's the most influential, next to maybe Musk (who I shouldn't need to explain why he's questionable). His attitudes should be more carefully scrutinised by the community.
The fact that a ridiculously high percentage of current projects may be scams doesn't negate that, it's not an uncommon phenomenon with dissemination technologies (printing presses were also used to disseminate outrageous propaganda lies).
The more interesting critique is that web3 tends to 'financialize everything'. I can see what's meant there and I wouldn't even contest that there is such a tendency. I can also see why people would be opposed to that, but I think that argument misses what's already happening. Facebook, gmail, Google Maps, pdf-merge,... may be mostly free for users, but their data is heavily monetized by the companies providing those services, with little to no transparency. Web3 can shift the pendulum of economic power a little bit (not fully, as maybe claimed by some enthusiasts) in the direction of users again. Public databases, anyone can build frontends for popular services, no need for rate-limited APIs when building on top of other projects,... I can see why FAANG shareholders should be opposed to that, but not why there seems to be such fundamental opposition on HN.