[lazzlazzlazz]

EDIT: Thanks for this comment — I edited the original for clarity.

I'm talking about crypto as in Ethereum, which are designed to resist centralization. HN wrongly thinks of crypto as a financial system (which it can do, for good and bad reasons thanks to its permissionlessness), instead of a family of methods for making composable, decentralized protocols with built-in economics (blockchains).

[TobyTheDog123]

But why do these protocols need built-in economics? No user is going to want to have a wallet that slowly drains as they use the web -- it's just not convenient and will be thoroughly rejected by the mainstream.

Compare this to something like torrenting - people give, people take. Sure, indexing is centralized, but once you have the index, it's all p2p. That's the direction decentralization should be taking, instead of the next generation of microtransactions where they're required for operation.

[theK]

You now too have a wallet that slowly drains while you use the internet. Web3 wallets are just better integrated into it.

Also, there is a misconception that the cryptocurrency based web is like dial up. It isn't. What it is is: 1. a way to decouple the ownership of the digital goods from the service that gave them to you 2. a way to actually do privacy preserving computing 3. an open layer to build added value things that can interact with assets and services others have created (think web2.0 in the bookmarklets era but your bookmarklets can talk with any site)

[TobyTheDog123]

Which of my wallets is draining as watch YouTube/TikTok/Twitch or read HN/Reddit? I have guesses on what you could mean (data, attention, etc), but some clarification would be nice.

1. There's no question that ownership is going to be a hot-button issue going forward, but I don't see how decentralization solves that problem (i.e NFTs being on ten different chains).

2. How does it preserve privacy? If I share data with a third party, what's to stop them from copying it over and ignoring my request to cut it off?

3. What is that added value? If you're talking about data portability that's certainly an argument in favor of decentralization, but that has a mess of competing & conflicting standards to wade through (see #1)

[theK]

Good questions.

I actually meant your normal wallet or bank account. They have a tendency to go towards zero even if we don't do anything because we already are paying monthly to be connected to the modern world. But yeah, attention and data are also good example of ones value draining away while using the web.

Re 1: most L1 blockchains have bridges to each other now. This means that I can move assets from one ecosystem to another quite easily. If one discounts the ethereum network, moving across chains is actually quite economic as well.

Re 2: in web2.0 sharing your data with another party was the only way to play. In the decentralized internet it is not. There is a lot of interesting work going on in this domain actually.

Re 3: I'll use an example from the gaming world but the concepts are transferable to non gaming 1 to 1. If Activision decides to create digital collectibles in their games today, I as an indie Dev cannot create a game where a user can log in and have their Activision stuff available in my game. In web3 these assets are encoded as state on an open platform so anybody can integrate them in their applications. In the case where NFTs are 1st class chain state, like in Cardano, you are even guaranteed that you can trade your NFT on whatever platform you choose, be that an indie game or the originating marketplace. Is it clearer now what the added value is?

[cxr]

> I actually meant your normal wallet or bank account.

Unless I'm on a mobile provider plan with data caps, the cost of consuming an additional Web page is zero.

[lazzlazzlazz]

Built-in economics doesn't mean users pay per use. A popular design path is to try to build systems where data that goes on the blockchain is very limited[1] and easily subsidized. It's also very easy to design systems where data writes and computation are subsidized by clients or the system itself.[2],[3],[4]

The reality is that in current networks, which are totally financial but only implicitly and in a way that is opaque to most users, computation and data costs are still subsidized. Crypto networks open a huge design space that simply makes the economic flows explicit — and not necessarily borne by users.

[1]: https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/2022/01/11/sufficient-decent...

[2]: https://medium.com/coinmonks/ethereum-meta-transactions-101-...

[3]: https://www.alchemy.com/blog/account-abstraction

[4]: https://www.stackup.sh/blog/what-are-paymasters

[n1c00o]

> But why do these protocols need built-in economics?

I believe, in this time of humanity where economy matters, that Blockchains have built-in economics for two reasons:

1. They all started copying Bitcoin, which by nature is an economic system (this is the goal of the Bitcoin's paper). 2. Reward by money is a common way to attract a sustainable amount of active users that keep the network alive without evil intention appart from making "quick bucks". In contract to volunteer networks such as Tor, where a lot (even a majority) of nodes are run by gov. agencies with the goal of identifying users, popular blockchains are still run properly since users are focusing on money and not destroying the network.

[invalidOrTaken]

>No user is going to want to have a wallet that slowly drains as they use the web -- it's just not convenient and will be thoroughly rejected by the mainstream.

You don't need the mainstream, you just need the cool kids. The mainstream will follow---or not.

As for why anyone would want this, there is a very compelling reason---no ads.

[arsome]

But I already have no ads and no payments, so no thanks.

[wwweston]

> Ethereum, which are designed to resist centralization

https://cryptoslate.com/research-ethereum-is-neither-decentr...

> permissionlessness

The existing internet is sufficiently permissionless for the vast majority of potential activities. Where it isn't, you start to reach into the boundaries past which there are often reasons for permissions to exist.

> HN wrongly thinks of crypto as a financial system... instead of a family of methods for making composable, decentralized protocols with built-in economics

A system with "built-in economics" is a financial system.

[rchaud]

> HN wrongly thinks of crypto as a financial system (which it can do, for good and bad reasons thanks to its permissionlessness),

That's how it's implemented in real life, so that's what people's takeaway is going to be. What was the last dApp anybody used that wasn't a pay-to-play game, or crypto marketplace?

You may as well say communism is theoretically sound, but people will continue to get hung up on the fact that's it's real-world implementations have always led to despotic leadership.