I'm actually more interested in Web3 now actually after reading this lol. Sounds like the Wild West of experimentation in new systems, complete with high drama and lawlessness. Sounds fun.
Web3 is going just great
141–150 of 357 posts
Re: Web3 is going just great
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how words work. You propose a term, and either it catches on or it doesn't, and this one has caught on. I don't know what committee of developers "that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies" you imagine exists that has some authority on what marketing terms you can use on twitter, or why a group explicitly disinterested in a topic should be consulted in the creation of those terms...
It’s not so much proposing a word rather than trying to take over a popular one in an effort to shed the negative reputation which years of failure had given your first one. It’s not surprising that people who work on the web don’t want their hard work being coopted to bail the cryptocurrency guys out of a mess they talked themselves into.
"web3" was certainly not a popular term before it was popularized by Ethereum / the crypto space.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#143I'm not a Web3 shill, but this is so insanely disingenuous it's not even funny. First of all, the argument that web3 is the biggest ecological problem of our time -- when essentially all of Asia is contributing 80% of ocean pollution, and the supply chain contributes to more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, is just straight-up delusional. The claim that Web3 is rife with hacks, when you have daily hacks of Web2…
Mhmmm. Remind us again, which country us by far the biggest polluter per capita on the planet? It's not "Asia". I think it's the country you are from.
The planet doesn't really care about "per capita" though, just total effect. By that logic, a country that has only 1M citizens but is highly industrious and has more pollutant side-effects per capita for that reason should get all the attention even if it's total contribution is less than 1%.
Doesn't make sense to me if your goal is to actually stop climate change, as opposed to just hand wringing.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#144I don't normally post a comment about this sort of thing, but in the context of the domain name itself, this is sort of funny:
> You need to enable JavaScript to view this timeline.
Web3 must be going pretty well if my Web1/2 lifestyle can't even read its text on a webpage.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#145The defining feature of Web3 is the absence of any central single-point-of-failure, moderation, or coercion in the technical stack - including individuals and businesses. Federated and/or P2P. Scrolling a bit, I see from the top: NFTs shilled on Twitter, centralized cryptocurrency exchanges getting hacked, things hosted on AWS, Peter Molyneux doing his thing... I don’t see a single example of Web3. Or even projects o…
>> coercion in the technical stack
Here are some things that I sincerely don't understand about DAO's. That tech stack that you speak of, it needs to become deployed onto a server before the public can interface with it. Who does that?
Will every pull request become an NFT?
Ok, so now you have an NFT and it's a crucial bug fix but what if most people don't want it to become deployed?
What if I own the server and I really don't care what people think nor do I think smart contracts are especially smart and I decide, amma gonna deploy it, so I xcopy it onto the server. Now what are you going to do with your voting rights? Yell and scream?
Will "automate everything by letting the blockchain decide what is the next thing to do" resolve the fact that the server owner can do whatever they feel like, at any point in time?
Who owns the software? A blockchain?
Who owns the hardware? A blockchain?
Since when can blockchains own things?
Re: Web3 is going just great
#146All the Web3 criticisms remind me of my experiences with Star Trek. For context, I never watched Star Trek. I'd read stories about fans and it always struck me as the dorkiest possible show, with unabashed nerdiness making something like the Big Bang Theory look like a sophisticated work of art. But one day, I listened to a podcast about strength training and a question came up about which Star Trek leader the host l…
Bitcoin has merit. There is a finite amount of it, and that's it. There is no more bitcoin after the whole 23? million are "minted".
Alt-coins/shitcoins are grifts, they can be worth what people want to pay but anyone can spin up a new coin. And they do. Pump and dump for chumps.
NFTs are the same. Anyone can create an NFT for whatever. There is no value in it whatsoever.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#147These really well built "web3 is dumb" sites seem like peak Streisand Effect, I'm baffled so many people are spending so much time yelling about something they think has "no use-case" and is already doomed to fail...
The sooner it dies, the less carbon we'll dump into the atmosphere so people can buy monkey jpegs
still, fighting against something can be a sort of induced anti-demand: people will be attracted to the controversy and might just take up arms against you
might be better to let sleeping dogs lie.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's a shame, but looking back at “web 2.0”, wasn't it kind of the same? I'm absolutely guilty about being excited about it at the time, but in retrospect, a bunch of rounded corners and incremental inclusion of Ajax didn't really warrant a SemVer major version update either. Edit: actually, maybe the justification of the SemVer bump is that people stopped caring about IE5 support :)
Web 2.0 was a hokey name, but at least it was a new approach to building web apps, built on the techniques and technology that preceded it. Web 3 is ... not that.
How is web3 not a new approach to building web apps?
You might disagree with the approach, but using blockchain as the backend for an app is very different from previous iterations of the web.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the math and incentives are there. Can you elaborate on this? The best critiques of blockchain tech, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, DeFi, etc. describe fatal flaws at the core of those technologies. For example, the lack of monetary policy and regulations, privacy and security shortcomings, and high transaction costs. It'd be great to read a positive analysis of the core merits (the math and the incentives) and how th…
Decentralized proof of ownership is the core merit, as I see it. That has some value, and NFTs are kind of the perfect vehicle to use the technology. But does it have any practical use? That's the question. NFTs are hot right now as an investment vehicle, or as a way for artists to sell unique creations (leading to investment vehicles, I suppose). I'm not sold on the utility, long term.
Decentralized proof of ownership only matters if people with guns think it matters.
I saw a short video of Keanu Reeves laughing at NFTs because they had value but are easy to copy.
Which I found somewhat funny. Keanu gets paid a lot because he acts in things that have value but are easy to copy (movies).
The reason why those have a high value is because of copyright. The people that financed the film have control over the copying of the film. Because people with guns agree with the copyright scheme (US government).
NFTs cannot have actual value unless people with the ability to enforce that scarcity cares about them.
Re: Web3 is going just great
#150All the Web3 criticisms remind me of my experiences with Star Trek. For context, I never watched Star Trek. I'd read stories about fans and it always struck me as the dorkiest possible show, with unabashed nerdiness making something like the Big Bang Theory look like a sophisticated work of art. But one day, I listened to a podcast about strength training and a question came up about which Star Trek leader the host l…
> But the math and incentives are there. It would hard for me to make a case that eventually cryptocurrency will fail. This strikes at one of my primary complaints with crypto/web3 discussions: Advocates switch between specific cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency in general, and the concept of a blockchain in general as convenient for their arguments. The concept of a cryptocurrency will always exist, but that doesn't m…
This concept (context switching) reminds me of the current USSR fans (yes, they exist). They pick and choose ONLY the positive parts of each specific decade of USSR history as it fits them and blindly ignore all the negatives. E.g. some bit of space race (the successful part of course) ignoring gulag which facilitated it; the victory part of WW2 ignoring all other countries and it's own participation in 39-40; the corruption trials ignoring literal mass killing with out trial at the same time; cheap budget living ignoring dying economic of the same period; and the list goes on.
Crypto bros do the same. Adoption - "look, Bitcoin", but its not working - "look, shitcoin1", but it's premined - "look, shitcoin2", but it's used by 3 persons including devs - "look, Bitcoin". And so on and on.