[rglullis]

Except that anyone with a minimal involvement with Ethereum already knows that the base layer is not meant to be used on day-to-day operations.

We already learned about the decentralization trillema. The strategy to scale Ethereum through will be through the adoption of "layer-2" systems, where users are expected to be doing their transactions and avoid these costly transactions altogether.

There are roll-ups already dealing with NFT marketplaces [0]. There are roll-ups that can execute any type of ethereum smart contract [1] [2]. There are payment channels that allow completely decentralized and gas-less transfers of ERC-20 tokens [3].

[0] https://loopring.io

[1] https://optimism.io/

[2] https://offchainlabs.com/

[3] https://raiden.network

[rvz]

> Except that anyone with a minimal involvement with Ethereum already knows that the base layer is not meant to be used on day-to-day operations.

Despite all those contraptions existing for years, BAYC still chose the Ethereum L1 since that has the most liquidity there and all the millionaires will certainly congest and grind the network to a halt just like they did with the CryptoKitties hype years ago. Here we are, this is no different.

Anything 'on-chain' is the whole point of Ethereum. These contraptions that you are showing are all off-chain, once again defeating the point of using the Ethereum blockchain for on-chain activities in the first place. Not only it has been admitted that Ethereum cannot scale properly and is useless for anything on-chain it needs an entire ecosystem of insecure, fragmented and beyond complicated layer 2 contraptions to 'speed it up'.

These tools also have a tendency to go down or halt, hinting that they are not as 'decentralized' as they say they are either.

[rglullis]

> contraptions existing for years

No, they did not. Loopring NFT marketplace was launched just a couple of months ago. The optimistic roll-ups are just now getting out of alpha/beta status. Raiden finally got their mainnet release in March.

> Ethereum L1 since that has the most liquidity there

- It's not going to be an overnight transition.

- It shouldn't be

- "Liquidity" does not need to relate to usage.

Sort like "savings" vs "checking" accounts, the base-layer will hold the majority of the assets, and people should keep on the layer-2 system "just enough" for what they plan to use in the short term.

[matheusmoreira]

> the base layer is not meant to be used on day-to-day operations

The whole point of cryptocurrencies was to use the blockchain for everything. Everyone should be able to use normal cryptocurrency wallets for all transactions. Anything else means cryptocurrencies have failed.

[rglullis]

Why?

Layer-2 have a very precise definition. They are systems that depend on the base-layer to guarantee the integrity and security of the transactions, but that through some mechanism can be executed outside of the blockchain.

A roll-up does not violate the security of the blockchain and users are in control of their assets at all times. What is the practical problem of using it? Just because some purist says so?

[ComradePhil]

> Everyone should be able to use normal cryptocurrency wallets for all transactions. Anything else means cryptocurrencies have failed.

Ethereum is designed to replace governments and banks. Use whatever you want as your barter tokens. Nobody cares.

[Invictus0]

This comment is hilarious from an outsider's perspective. For all I know, you may as well be describing the turboencabulator.

[rglullis]

I'm not saying that the system has a good UX, or that it's ready for mass-consumption. I am just saying that if you are minimally involved with it, you should be aware of the issues and the alternatives in development.

[kkielhofner]

Serious question because you seem to have a very good handle on this.

Thirteen years after the release of bitcoin. Seven for Ethereum. Both of these technologies had the benefit of building on each other (and many others), ubiquitous internet connectivity, social media, mobile, etc.

Yet all of it is still nowhere near ready for mass-consumption. How is it possible that technologies/platforms with all of the advantages I mentioned are significantly underperforming mass adoption compared to any other significant technology created over the past 30 years?

Reminds me of “the year of the Linux desktop”.

[rglullis]

The difficult part of decentralized tech like this is that we can not hide its complexity into any kind of abstraction. Decentralization, by definition, means that no node in the network is different from each other. Because of this lack of specialization, the system as a whole is more robust but the failure modes for each individual node multiply.

Decentralized systems do not benefit from "efficiencies of scale", but the opposite, they force every actor to duplicate work, execute functions, etc, etc.

> Reminds me of “the year of the Linux desktop”.

You know what? I think it is a good analogy, but not in the way you think it is. I think using "mass-adoption" as a measure of success for web3 is as stupid as using to measure "Desktop Linux" as a measure for FOSS success.

I think what makes web3 interesting is that it gives options, even if most people think that it is not the "ideal" alternative.

Centralized alternatives can and should be used whenever possible. They are cheaper, more efficient and do not require everyone to become an expert. But there will always be cases where the centralized alternatives are broken (Google's algorithmic approach to solve problems at scale), corrupt (governments/institutions that abuse their power) or hostile to the users (Big Tech exploitation of data privacy to optimize for eyeballs, Apple's "my way or the highway" when it comes to consumer electronics, etc).

I'm using "Linux on the desktop" for 15 years already, but it's not because I think it was a "better desktop". I am using it to because it is the only alternative that doesn't force me to sacrifice some principles and because it lets me avoid dealing with MS/Apple shit.

Similarly, this is why we should work on web3: not to try to replace the existing web, but to have an option that lets us avoid systems created (and controlled) by centralized institutions that might not be working in our best interests.

[kkielhofner]

Fair enough. I’ve been using Linux on the desktop since 1997, FYI.

As long as you have reasonable expectations web3 exists as a choice that makes sense to me and, at the rate things are going, Web3 as a choice looks to me a lot like Linux on the desktop.

Problem is there is going to be a lot of heartbreak if web3 tops out at 2.5% market share in 30+ years like Linux on the desktop has. That said 2.5% is a lot better than the <1% anything blockchain related sees today (after 13 years).

[rglullis]

> Problem is there is going to be a lot of heartbreak if web3

Heartbreak by whom? Bitcoin maxis? Superstonks losers who all parrot things about the inevitable dominance from "their" pet project? ICO/NFT "investors"?

There is no shortage of people like me who are working on web3 and keep warning (or trying to warn) the general public that web3 is not about getting rich. If people don't want to listen, it's on them.