The question the title asks can be answered with a single word: yes.
[deleted]
Is Web3 Bullshit?
41–50 of 383 posts
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#42Earlier 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
web1 was reading other people's content, web2 was about creating content and handing it to someone else to publish online, and web3 should be about retaining ownership of your own work. In theory, a web3 website could aggregate content produced by users while the users would be free to revoke the site's access, or they could move their content to a different site if they want, or they could delete it entirely. In a w…
This all sounds very noble, but it will last precisely as long as it takes someone to right-click copy right-click paste.
Sure you can verify the hash and signature etc, but no one reading an article is going to bother verifying the signature apart from the real die-hards. Heck my mum can't even verify she typed in the right URI and ends up on all sorts of crazy scam sites (e.g. "I went to google and they said I had to call them about a virus and pay them £150 to fix it").
If someone posts something to reddit3, then someone copies it and reposts it again with a different hash and sig, what will happen? Nothing I expect.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Web 1/2/3 is a designation of the global structure of web, if you don't see how 1 and 2 differ (like op) then you don't care that 2 and 3 do.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#44Reading through the linked article on "real world uses for Web3", most of them seem to consist of things that public key cryptography has been able to solve for decades (persistent identity, multiple persistent identities) or things you could do anyway ("right now, people can only go to facebook or Google. With Web3, everyone can have their own space!!") because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server.…
I often feel like I’m missing a key piece of technological or intellectual insight when I read bullish articles like the linked one. I cannot see a single use-case in there that would definitively be improved by the use of blockchain, and in most cases, I’d expect the opposite to happen.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#45Web3 seems like a response to every facet of Facebook. Facebook offers valuable services for free in exchange for data about its users. Web3 pays users for data they own and control with money grown on trees. There are limitless forests where money grows on trees if you just close your eyes and dream hard enough. Advertisers will pay users for their data, cutting out the middleman who creates any sort of meaning abou…
the user can then use the money he earned to buy the valuable service , or another service, isn't that better?
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#46Yes. Now let’s move on to more worthwhile endeavors
i'm listening
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#47It 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”.
Yes I guess we can drop the "latest".
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#48Ignoring its association with Ethereum and crypto.
I think standards for the following:
- Authentication
- Payments
- Storage
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#49web3 is a complete marketing marvel. the only goal is money and more money and more..
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
web1 was reading other people's content, web2 was about creating content and handing it to someone else to publish online, and web3 should be about retaining ownership of your own work. In theory, a web3 website could aggregate content produced by users while the users would be free to revoke the site's access, or they could move their content to a different site if they want, or they could delete it entirely. In a w…
This all sounds very noble, but it will last precisely as long as it takes someone to right-click copy right-click paste. Sure you can verify the hash and signature etc, but no one reading an article is going to bother verifying the signature apart from the real die-hards. Heck my mum can't even verify she typed in the right URI and ends up on all sorts of crazy scam sites (e.g. "I went to google and they said I had…
The ownership aspect of web3 doesn't fix the problem you outline, sure, but it isn't meant to. Ownership of something isn't proof of uniqueness, it doesn't stop copying, and it would have no impact on what user's are able to do with other user's content. That's the same as ownership in the real world - the fact you own a Picasso doesn't stop me copying it, or photographing it, or telling people it's really by me. Ownership is about control of how legitimate third parties interact with your things, not how people copy them, illegally or otherwise. The control over copying comes from the legal mechanisms we attach to ownership, not the ownership itself. You can sue me for copying something, or report me to the police. The same would be true for web3 (if the courts choose to recognise that aspect of it all).
The benefit of web3 is about users being able to control how their content is published by web3 websites. Reddit3 would not be able to claim ownership of user's creations. Like I said, I don't know if it's necessary or even that useful for users to have that control, but people definitely complain about it a bit. Maybe it would be.