281–290 of 706 posts
The people who are advocating web3 are not the people who were part of building web1 & web2 (whatever those even mean). They're people who are idealistic & seem to disregard (or are ignorant of) the effort in building infrastructure at scale. Building things is hard. Building things that scale even harder & anybody who has worked at a company that needs to scale knows there are trade-offs between security, centralisa…
I'm not convinced. People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain. DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2"…
Even if blockchain are technically equivalent to digital signatures, it seems like it has some real advantages from a business perspective: - it is capturing the market of people who want to buy "official" digital assets and is becoming the de facto way to do so - the market is one that should have strong network effects - gaining the trust of that market is crucial to supporting these sort of trades
I still think NFTs are a bubble that will come back down to Earth eventually. But I also find sneaker and stamp collectors equally perplexing, and people don't discuss these phenomena with the same sort of skepticism.
Web3 is nothing but an echo chamber. A very empty echo chamber, so it echoes pretty nice. I'm back to the worldwide web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not need to make money from the product directly. Think for example if the Bitcoin creator would get 10 cent every time someone mentioned Bitcoin. Or the easiest business model of them all, sell ads on your org site.
> Think for example if the Bitcoin creator would get 10 cent every time someone mentioned Bitcoin Eh, how would that work exactly? > Or the easiest business model of them all, sell ads on your org site That's great, but I can ensure you: none of us in the cryptocurrency ecosystem wants anything to do with ads. Also, can't really build a big business by having ads on your website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a grift that people want you to buy into. That's why they're so invested in talking about it. If the technology was good, it'd practically sell itself.
This is often not necessarily the case. For web3 - I'm still waiting to figure out what problem it can solve meaningfully.
Money laundering and other criminal behaviour.
Many of the things we spent decades trying to remove from the financial system will come roaring back in. Of course it will come courtesy of young, wealthy, educated IT guys who are the least exposed to any financial shocks.
> Frankly, it is all too much for me. Same. I've been actively unfollowing people on Twitter every day to clean my feeds of it. I'm not anti-web3 or anti-crypto, but I definitely don't need to read the same rhetoric from 100 people a day. Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it...
Web3 is federated, not decentralized. The distinction is significant.
This definition really doesn’t sit right with me. IPv6 and phone numbers have central authorities. I can’t just configure my cellphone to receive calls from a number that I wasn’t issued by my carrier. Nor can my carrier issue me a number from another country’s number pool. To me, the phone network is a great example of a federated network. IPv6 is similar. I think snail mail is probably the best example of something that is truly decentralized. Sure, there are authorities that chop up plots of land and give them names and numbers, but no one prevents me from asking a friend to put a letter in the mailbox of 123 Main St.
Please correct me if I’m missing some key semantic argument(s).
"Keeping their login credentials in their wallet" was already possible a long time ago with client-side TLS/SSL certificates. But web developers didn't want to change from the classic implementation of plaintext passwords.
Porting personal data from one service to another is a problem, so I'll give the author a point for that.
I feel sad that this beautiful thing has been usurped by shysters, grifters and scumbags. Web3 is decentralization. Not crypto, not blockchain, not your shitcoin, not your mining and most definitely not your NFTs. We need to take it back for our children's sake.
How?
The single important question about web3 is: will it be free? Can app devs just start building without paying the blockchain / network fee? The same for users; can they just use apps for free? If not, the question is: do you pay with data, and go free, or do you pay with real money and prices skyrocketing due to endless speculations?
IMO, pay with money. End of story. Expecting services for free got is into this horrible advertising model that turned us into the product rather than customers. There are people promoting gasless, free to use chains. That model is flawed. Financial incentives is what finally made decentralized networks a real thing. For a good explanation as to where we're going with this, read "Who Owns The Future."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it... And the order of operations. Traditionally, you build something great (or an MVP) and market it. The crypto community has been putting the marketing before the building. It's probably uncontroversial to say although cryptocurrency -could- do great things, right now the bulk of trade…
This is such a good point. "Web 2.0" didn't really emerge as a term of art until there was a need to describe the widespread adoption of UGC, REST, & AJAX and blockbuster web applications like gmail replacing desktop applications.