Why Web3?

Why would UI need to be centralized? Even in normal SPAs the client is making most of the work, the UI is fairly trivial to decentralize and there were a few examples on hn already.

> If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single company, but instead is a truly open system available to all, then that kind of market power cannot be built up around a data asset

That's just so blatantly and obviously false it's rather remarkable that he wrote it.

Absolutely nothing stops companies from becoming the dominant providers - aka big tech - that utilize said database at the application layer. Indeed that's exactly what will happen. You don't need to own the database to build a big tech monopoly on top of it. Microsoft didn't own the primary distribution channel for Windows 95, and they didn't own the hardware it ran on either. Google (search, circa 1999) didn't own the Internet, or the PC, or the operating system, or the cable line, or the telecom infrastructure, and so on. Consumers develop preferences, companies develop advantages (through superior products or other means), and the market dominance centralizes to one or a few providers. That's always inevitable short of government intervention. You don't have to own the database to build a monopoly on top of it. The better products (or via other leverage points) will win out and dominate and will be extraordinarily difficult to compete with, their advantage will become entrenched as their product gains in complexity and capability (ie competing with Google in 1998 was far easier than it would have been by 2012, as they scaled their capabilities and made enormous investments globally); the cost to keep up the with the winners soars and few will try (see: lack of dozens or hundreds of new competitors to Uber and Lyft, few are even trying at this point, the potential competition gives up for obvious reasons).

Say hello to Coinbase & Co. We've already seen this process in action in crypto, many times over.

Even in the early days of computing, there were obvious benefits to networking computers. The work wasn't done for no reason, there was clear value in coming up with all of these protocols. The main reason it took so long for general adoption was the fact that computers were not in most family homes until the 1990s. The barrier to adopting the internet wasn't the inherent value of the protocols it was the cost of the machine to the average consumer.

I'm confident in saying this because we are further along in the computing adoption cycle and we haven't really come up with anything useful.

Your point about transferring something to someone else without a third party ignores transaction costs. Who cares if you need a third party if you are purchasing something legally and the cost to transact is low?

The post this post links to a few times [1] is the more interesting one:

https://continuations.com/post/671863718643105792/web3crypto...

Still, it's unconvincing to me.

It argues web3 is about permissionless data. The problem with that is we already have permissionless data -- you can put almost any kind of data you want on a server and encourage people honor it. What they actually want is shared data, governed by rules that hard for anyone to change, and use that as scaffolding to build systems around consequential data. That's kind of interesting, but what happens when the rules conflict with reality. E.g., when the blockchain says you own the land but the law says someone else does? Now you could agree to make a blockchain database is the authority on something, even contractually, which would help it harmonize with laws to a decent degree. But that would be an individual decision and doesn't preclude scams, fraud, people acting in bad faith, etc.

Ultimately blockchains about data of any consequence will have to comport with applicable laws and regulations, just like everything else. The lack of flexibility likewise makes blockchain pretty useless for softer things, like social networks. (It's kind of silly to even bring up social networks in this context, but the post brings up Facebook.)

The value prop here is the “without a third party” bit I presume? That seems more like a political or ethical preference rather than true value. Email allowed you to instantly and perfectly send a message anywhere at any time, and you could cut down on machine and paper/ink costs. Genuine value.

Ironically, the crypto way of doing transactions is more like the fax machine to Venmo’s email. The former is slow and more expensive, while the latter is instant and free.

Edit: I’d also like to point out you still have a third party in crypto. It’s just that the third party is the entire network rather than a single company.