←back to thread

The old internet shows signs of quietly coming back

(cheapskatesguide.org)
622 points ColinWright | 5 comments | 25 Jan 22 22:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.086s | source
Show context
pavlov ◴[25 Jan 22 23:17 UTC] No.30079513[source]▶
> 'Some people use the term "Web 3.0" to refer only to decentralized blockchain-based networks without considering that all personal websites have essentially the same goals, be they on the regular Internet or on the new blockchain networks. Those who use the term "web 3.0" seem to have forgotten that self-hosted personal websites that run on home servers and are accessible over the regular Internet are inherently decentralized. Unfortunately, despite common goals, some on today's old Internet are hostile to blockchain technology. I am not sure why.'

What goals does today's crypto-token-powered "web 3" vision share with the old Internet? It's not enough to say "well it's decentralized" and do a handwave.

Consider the NFT exploration Moxie Marlinspike did recently:

https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

This is essentially a system that lets you buy DRM'd metadata that points to servers owned by a corporation funded by billions of VC dollars, and transactions are recorded on a ledger that spends more power than the entire country of Finland. The only purpose of these activities is to speculate on prices of these make-believe digital assets.

None of these things have anything to with the old Internet: cargo cult DRM, billion-dollar VC funding, enormous energy waste, artificial scarcity where none is needed.

That website on dial-up was slow because of real physical constraints, not artificial constraints erected to make VCs richer at the expense of the planet's ecosystem.

replies(9): >>30079755 #>>30079764 #>>30079765 #>>30079780 #>>30079856 #>>30079891 #>>30080030 #>>30080090 #>>30080132 #
idiotsecant ◴[25 Jan 22 23:44 UTC] No.30079764[source]▶
It's worth noting that there is a core of people doing real work in crypto who are not trying to peddle NFTs or other sleight of hand rungpulls designed to separate the gullible from their money.

Ethereum, for example, is full of people building interesting things like off-chain low-cost trading using non-interactive zero knowledge proofs and actively working to make crypto less energy intensive and more useful. They don't want to sell you an NFT and it's not part of some elaborate rugpull- There are plenty of examples of people doing this important work because they legitimately believe that a world where fiat control is divorced from the levers of governmental power is a positive change.

There are also, of course, people trying to use those achievements as part of a weird shell game where the end result is giving gullible strangers nothing in exchange for something. That's sort of the human condition.

replies(6): >>30079836 #>>30079853 #>>30079924 #>>30079934 #>>30080231 #>>30080329 #
1. agentultra ◴[26 Jan 22 01:00 UTC] No.30080329[source]▶
> There are plenty of examples of people doing this important work because they legitimately believe that a world where fiat control is divorced from the levers of governmental power is a positive change.

Regardless of their intentions this is a bad idea and deserves every line of criticism it receives.

Governance, law, and financial regulation exist for reasons that programmers have no place or reason to replace.

Wether they wish it or not there is a centralization of authority that will happen. In Ethereum’s case either the oligarchs with the most money will set the rules, or more likely, actual governments with armies and the ability to enforce laws will.

replies(1): >>30095108 #
2. idiotsecant ◴[27 Jan 22 01:53 UTC] No.30095108[source]▶
>Regardless of their intentions this is a bad idea and deserves every line of criticism it receives.

That's a fair criticism, even if I don't agree with it. I don't think it's possible to imagine a world where consensus is shared widely enough that 'mutually assured destruction' of the financial network prevents transaction censorship, particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur.

>Governance, law, and financial regulation exist for reasons that programmers have no place or reason to replace.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that governance, law, or financial regulation should go away. Those things seem important. The governments of the world can enforce those things like they always have. They just lose the ability to manufacture more money when it's time to fight a new war or pay off one special interest or another (but only if most of the people participating in that society buy into the idea that the government is not a good steward of that power)

Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not. I certainly don't have that today - I get to punch the 'RED GUY' or 'BLUE GUY' button on my voting ticket but neither of them are particularly interested in changing something that fundamental.

replies(1): >>30095947 #
3. agentultra ◴[27 Jan 22 03:44 UTC] No.30095947[source]▶
> particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur.

Sounds great if you want to buy things law enforcement would be interested in tracking down.

> Those things seem important.

Understatement of the year.

> Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not.

Assuming you live in the US, then you do -- it's called democracy.

But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea.

replies(1): >>30101846 #
4. idiotsecant ◴[27 Jan 22 15:41 UTC] No.30101846{3}[source]▶
>But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea.

Oh geez, we should probably stop doing that then.

replies(1): >>30105170 #
5. agentultra ◴[27 Jan 22 19:34 UTC] No.30105170{4}[source]▶
Agreed.

This is what I mean about giving a bunch of programmers/developers the power to choose new forms of governance/financial infrastructure.

These are social structures that affect everyone and shouldn't be given to developers no matter how well-meaning they are.