let people filter for themselves. someone is offended by pornography so chooses an algo that accounts for that, another is offended by anti-trans sentiment and another algo accounts for that. everyone should be more broadly free to speak but we are not all forced to listen.
I don't think these anti free speech "examples" have the effect that people who cite them expect. Yet they are used a lot which points to a striking disconnect in communication.
May I ask why do you think that? If someone touts that free speech is important, but tries to suppress or penalize it, if it is directed against them. One natural conclusion would be, that their commitment is at least questionable.
But it does surprise that so many technologists are falling into this trap (disregarding the innovation because of the plethora of junk it enables). The value of permission-less platforms and protocols should no be assessed absent of curation. Google, email spam filtering, wikipedia, the web abounds with examples and without curation we would be in a sea of shit.
Aren't these examples of centralization of a decentralized technology? If so, what's the point of starting an expensive-to-run distributed platform only to end up at the same point we're at now where in practice most activity goes through a few centralized gatekeepers? After all, you can still run your own web or SMTP server. The web is still permission-less in the trivial sense - just like crypto. But Google can blacklist your site or blackhole your emails making your permission-less services useless in practice. What stops a curated web3 from ending up in the same place we're at now?
>What stops a curated web3 from ending up in the same place we're at now?
The answer is either nothing at all, or paradoxically it's some vague sense of optimism involving "faith" "belief" and "trust". It should surprise no one that web3 fundamentally can't deliver on any of its promises.
Wow. I hadn't seen that. I just read about it and it reinforces my view that cryptocurrency is appealing to the wealthy because of the promise that whoever controls all the tokens and resources (ie: wealth) controls all the rules.
When you look at some of the issues with ICANN at least there's some chance that public opinion can influence them. The .org scandals show this. Imagine if the whole system was "code is law" and the existing executives and board members owned a controlling interest of "vote tokens".
I don't understand why people would want a system like that with crypto domains. Do they think that a system where $1 = 1 vote is going to be democratic?
They prefer a system where the wealthy have the power, and they're the wealthy. Crypto comes with two promises: 1) You'll have tons of money, from having invested early 2) The government is powerless to control the money
And it probably also has to do with the fact that he has an enormous share in the governing DAO for ENS, so even being fired from a job doesn't mean he's gone.
But yeah, being associated with someone who doubles down on past homophobic and transphobic statements probably isn't all that attractive to a bunch of people
Many of these may have been dropped as a response to Brantly Milligan being fired/canceled/banned from Twitter. At least that's why mine is up there. Could do some analysis on dates to confirm/disprove.
they don't necessarily require ongoing maintenance, it depends how they are coded. some might even say the "correct" way is a non-upgradeable back-end (on-chain solidity contracts) and hash-addressed, ipfs hosted front-end. anyone can then pin the front-end themselves to ensure access or just run the code locally. dapps should rely on centralised, server based components as that mostly defeats the purpose.
uniswap is a good example. when they release an upgrade users must explicitly adopt the new version. in fact uniswap v1 and v2 still see usage despite the release of uniswap v3.
just curious where you get the 30% figure. usdc borrowing on aave is 2.83% right now, which is practically reduced a further 0.97% by the AAVE incentives. most other stablecoins are in the same region.
Like a sibling said it might be more of a promotional rate thing since there are max lock-ups, but here's a Binance document [0] that advertises 20% for AVAX, NEAR, MATIC, and 70% for CAKE (never heard of it). Looking at CAKE, they have a max lockup of 10 coins for 90 days. So that's... $60 worth of crypto at 70% APR for 90/365 days ~= $10 profit max. Just like banks that offer a stunning 3% interest rate when you open a savings account (up to $3,000 for first 3 months etc etc)
Andre is an innovator, both of protocols and token distribution methods. He invented the notion of a "fair launch" with YFI. Nobody was ever forced to interact with the contracts he published, they chose to. But of course he became a big figure and then got untold amounts of shit dumped on him.
Anyway, here's hoping he continues as an anon. That's really the only way. People are ridiculous.
Nothing really has surprised me more than how difficult it had been for a lot of you to understand what the value is here.
It is a database with a new property: data and rules for manipulating data can be fixed. Yes inefficient in iops but who cares - it allows a whole new class of activity.
I also struggle to understand how the users of HN don't see, what I think is to any thinking person, the clear advantages of values of blockchain systems.
Immutable ledgers with permanently recorded and inalterable activity make many issues with not only fiat currency desirable, but the applications into other areas are, quite honestly, limited only by the imagination of those who develop the technology further.
But in practice, what new applications does this actually unlock? When do you need to cut out the middleman to this extent? For serious transactions you typically want a reputable middleman who is licensed and insured and accountable to the justice system. Blockchain sounds good, except that now you lose all of those legal and financial guarantees and have to track everything yourself. And everything you do is probably now public, too.
I don’t think this is a failure of imagination as much as a sober awareness of the many problems with blockchain. I will say that some alt coins have much better privacy properties so hey, there could be more to all this in a few years.
> but the applications into other areas are, quite honestly, limited only by the imagination of those who develop the technology further.
Could you offer some examples? I keep seeing this as some kind of new frontier of functionality and yet not a single answer to anyone asking for useful applications built on blockchains that aren't currency.
Not just currency but pretty much all financial services. I have blockchain based assets and have used an Ethereum based service to borrow against them to help buy a house. Tokens are an almost unimaginably large and general concept and will be applied to many things (real work assets, stocks, loyalty programs, etc.) and provide much more flexibility for how they are used, distributed and exchanged.
DAOs are organizational structures that are built, generally, off of token based membership. This is also a huge landscape for social coordination.
A lot of this is just new, though. So explaining like this can only go so far and ultimately it must be experienced, like the original web in the 90s.
I don’t clearly see how it’s ground-breaking. Non-repudiation could be achieved long before blockchain, because we have cryptography and can sign stuff.
Agreed, this article highlights the important property (decentralized state) that programmable blockchain (web3/ethereum) provide and why that's needed to change the current power dynamics governing web activity.
HN has adopted a suicidal mindmeld on this issue. Can't be helped. The discussion will turn around when the first big platforms show up, but by then it'll be too late. HN is FUDing people out of the investment and retooling opportunity of their lifetime.
The criticisms of blockchain now will age just as well as criticism of the web. "Why do I need Amazon if I can just use the neighborhood bookstore?" sums up most criticisms here.
There you go. The blockchains that have utility and use-cases will survive once regulations arrive. Coins that have little use cases, memecoins, etc will wither away.
But of course, another article about Web3 and the anti-web 3 crowd continues to comment on it as if web3 is a nightmare come true.
