Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Web3 Bullshit?

maxread.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 383 posts

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#31

Post by padolsey »

nathias wrote: post #30
mattlondon wrote: post #7

It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.

Dry your tears, then you might see better and see what the fuss is about.

Can you elucidate us with how exactly this is an advancement of web technologies per se? I agree with OP comment that it's strange to adopt web3 as a moniker when it is a distinct stack/infra much akin to IPFS in spirit.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#33

Post by _vufv »

One aspect that I strongly dislike about "web3" is that it poisons the discourse with its incentives.

I don't believe that every person on Twitter with $BTC in their profile understands or can knowledgeably argue the benefits of Web3, but their crypto holdings make them a hard-lined crypto zealot in the hopes of multiplying few hundred dollars they've put in.

It's fairly widely known how laughable it is to look for unbiased opinion in the interviews of pundits talking finance. This is since it's become expected that none of their advice is going to be untethered to their investments, but given the opportunity they're talk their book all they long. I don't see that much wrong with talking your book, but desperately trying to cover it up under the guise of "knowing the tech is superior" while only having superficial understanding of what's going on - makes intelligent people reading your stuff distrust you immediately.

I know people on both sides of the fence. I know of only one person that's skeptical of Web3 but still hedges on its success. I'm surprised that there is no middle ground - there are either fervent advocates or fervent opposition, and with very few exceptions (!), the opposition seems to think more clearly and is better informed.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#34

Post by legutierr »

mattlondon wrote: post #7

It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.

> the latest crypto pyramid scheme

The client libraries for Ethereum are called “web3”, and have been for half a decade at least. Web3 has been a core concept promoted by the Ethereum team from the beginning.

Say what you will about Ethereum, it is not the “latest crypto pyramid scheme”.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#35

Post by Hjfrf »

wisty wrote: post #24
gjulianm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server. This is a constant issue I have with crypto advocates. Most of the use cases can be done with crypto, but also with other techs (sometimes it's as simple as "we need a database for this"). But there's never a serious analysis of why those use cases have not been covered with previous tech, and when you point out that there might be issues other than the…

I love pointing out that if it becomes a serious currency banks would offer bitcoin-denominated loans (causing an increase in money supply); and if there's then a credit crunch the Fed could offer bitcoin-denominated (but unbacked) bonds. It would be like the gold standard all over again.

Exchanges and stablecoin issuers are already involved in fractional reserve banking.

It's free money to them, why not?

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#36

Post by jillesvangurp »

If you've read Anathem by Neal Stephenson; he has an amusing made up word "bullshytt" (https://anathem.fandom.com/wiki/Bulshytt) that is being used in the book by the avout to denote exactly the kind of stuff web3 seems to be about.

In the book, the Avout are basically science & philosphy nerds that the rest of society has locked up in monasteries where they are not allowed to use any form of modern technology after a few incidents in the past where they went off and invented things like gene manipulation, nuclear weapons, etc. The outside world still has technology and interacting with them every few decades is hard for the avout because they seem to adopt all sorts of technical jargon every few years (i.e. bullshytt). So, they need to figure out what these people are talking about every time they are allowed out (every 1, 10, 100, or a 1000 years).

Asking the question if it is bullshit is kind of answering it, I would say. But it's definitely bullshytt.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#37

Post by boudin »

flohofwoe wrote: post #29
mattlondon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd disagree with that. Web 2 was the idea of site content being dynamic and user generated, and not curated by journalists/editors/whoever working a 9-5 or whatever. For many things like reddit, digg, youtube etc there was only a web interface to these things. They were of and for the web

Wikis existed long before the term "Web 2" was invented, "Web 2" wasn't about user generated content or "socializing", but simply a commercial land grab.

Can't agree more. Creating and sharing content in a decentralized way is exactly what the web is about from its inception.

The only change that occured in the era marketed as "web2" is strong attacks against decentralization.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#38

Post by xorcist »

mattlondon wrote: post #16
cblconfederate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

social networking 'web2' had little lot to do with web also

I'd disagree with that. Web 2 was the idea of site content being dynamic and user generated, and not curated by journalists/editors/whoever working a 9-5 or whatever. For many things like reddit, digg, youtube etc there was only a web interface to these things. They were of and for the web

That was only a small part of "web 2.0". Just as important were syndication, embeddability and APIs. Web 2 were podcasts, blogs, RSS and pingbacks.

Web 1.0 evolved with user generated content and now more of the world's information is locked up behind a login screen than before.

What this has to do with what is being sold as "web 3.0" is not clear. Blockchains have their uses but it's not the web.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#39

Post by StephenJGL »

It feels marketing driven. Like trying to make a thing. I haven't seen an actual change in consumer interaction with the web, which was a defining aspect of web1 -> web2.
Post reply on HN