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

Are we wrong about Web3?

terminusdb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#61

Post by PaulHoule »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #59
PaulHoule wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The payments are fundamental to it. Ted Nelson described the Xanadu system in the 1970s which anticipated the web, he recognized a need for creators to get paid and planned to have a micropayments system built in. Practically the web got advertising instead and then the patron and subscription models but somebody could make the case we need something better. Web3 has the particular horror that simple calculations tha…

> It not only fries the planet Just to point out, "Web3" usually is talking about smart contract executions; All the smart contract platforms I know of are (or will soon be) proof of stake, so no burning the planet required

I think Etherium has been talking about going to "proof of stake" for a few years...

(1) I'll believe it when I see it, (2) "proof of stake" is not proven to be effective against takeovers to the extent that "proof of work" is.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#62

Post by ModernMech »

spicybright wrote: post #54
cmckn wrote: post #9

This is poorly written; words and punctuation are missing all over the place. I don’t understand the git analogy at all. > If we’re extending the definition of web3 to include decentralized software systems We certainly aren’t. Web3 is defined by “trustless” decentralized systems (which usually aren’t actually decentralized, in practice). Branding a database as “Web3” is terrible PR, given web3’s reputation for obsce…

I still don't really get what web3 actually means. It seems like the new "cloud" when describing software.

As far as I can tell, it answers the question "What if corporations re-invented the Internet in their own image?"

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#63

Post by JohnFen »

jollybean wrote: post #44

Git is a Web3 tech like a disk drive, the IP stack, or an 'App' is a Web3 tech. Which is to say, it's Web 1 tech, if it's a Web 'N' tech at all.

Honestly, I found much about the essay fairly incomprehensible, but the mention of git was particularly baffling.

Git has nothing to do with the web whatsoever. I suspect that the author may be confusing git itself with git "service providers" such as github.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#64

Post by cableshaft »

root_axis wrote: post #41

I'm going to reprise a comment of mine that I posted on a similar HN article some time ago. Over the years I've witnessed a lot of heated debates on HN... Is the JS ecosystem actually too complex? Is PHP really a fractal of bad design? Is learning vim worth the effort or is it all hype? Is golang fundamentally broken because it lacks(lacked) generics? Does anyone ever actually need k8s? Is nosql always the wrong choi…

To be fair, none of those other debates have anything to do with finances and wealth tools or vehicles. There's inherently less incentive to scam people with those things because it won't make someone rich to do so (at least nowhere near the extent that other options, like stealing digital financial assets, would).

Email and websites in general have tons of scams associated with it, to the point where I'm required for whatever company or client I work for to take phishing/security awareness lectures every single year, yet those things don't "need to be defended".

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#65

Post by Agamus »

mcdonje wrote: post #31
danielvaughn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. My first job in tech was with a platform that promised a "Web 2.0" experience that was centered around drag-and-drop. Take a wild guess as to whether they're still around...

There was a lot of web 2.0 hype around the late 90s / early aughts. Lots of companies that tried to cash in on a trend without a solid business model. That said, the situation was appreciably different to now. Web 2.0, as I understand it, was about increasing interactivity so websites aren't all static, which has the possibility of being beneficial to end users. Web 3.0, as I understand it, is crypto-nonsense.

Web 3 sounds to me like people who came to the web in the Facebook era, and wish they could have what we had in the good old days. Who can blame them?

The problem is that the solution to centralization is to stop centralizing, which the new approach doesn't seem to do. Perhaps there is a way to have our cake and eat it too?

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#66

Post by pcthrowaway »

PaulHoule wrote: post #61
pcthrowaway wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It not only fries the planet Just to point out, "Web3" usually is talking about smart contract executions; All the smart contract platforms I know of are (or will soon be) proof of stake, so no burning the planet required

I think Etherium has been talking about going to "proof of stake" for a few years... (1) I'll believe it when I see it, (2) "proof of stake" is not proven to be effective against takeovers to the extent that "proof of work" is.

To (1), it has, but the actual switch over is slated for the next few months.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#67

Post by flir »

PaulHoule wrote: post #15
chomp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only guess, but it looks like they want to ride (and got VC funding to ride) the Web3 hype wave, but they don't want to be lumped in with "the other Web3 people".

It's consistent with what you see in other insider communication about "Web3" in that words and symbols are used in isolation from each other and without any attempt at weaving them into a narrative. For instance the official site for Bored Ape Yacht Club shows a bar with a neon sign that says "FOMO". Near the entrance in Decentraland there are pictures of the Doge and other internet memes. It is not about communicat…

It's William Gibson's future, and we're just living in it.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#68

Post by PaulHoule »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #66
PaulHoule wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Etherium has been talking about going to "proof of stake" for a few years... (1) I'll believe it when I see it, (2) "proof of stake" is not proven to be effective against takeovers to the extent that "proof of work" is.

To (1), it has, but the actual switch over is slated for the next few months.

When it really happens I'll give them credit for it.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#69

Post by jollybean »

JohnFen wrote: post #63
jollybean wrote: post #44

Git is a Web3 tech like a disk drive, the IP stack, or an 'App' is a Web3 tech. Which is to say, it's Web 1 tech, if it's a Web 'N' tech at all.

Honestly, I found much about the essay fairly incomprehensible, but the mention of git was particularly baffling. Git has nothing to do with the web whatsoever. I suspect that the author may be confusing git itself with git "service providers" such as github.

I think they mean Git is Web3 in that is inherently designed to be a decentralized system where 'no specific repo is authoritative'.

That 'philosophy' definitely has Web3 'resonance'.

It could be used as an example of 'decentralization', surely, but it's hard top put anything in the context of Web3 given how vague it is.

Re: Are we wrong about Web3?

#70

Post by root_axis »

cableshaft wrote: post #64
root_axis wrote: post #41

I'm going to reprise a comment of mine that I posted on a similar HN article some time ago. Over the years I've witnessed a lot of heated debates on HN... Is the JS ecosystem actually too complex? Is PHP really a fractal of bad design? Is learning vim worth the effort or is it all hype? Is golang fundamentally broken because it lacks(lacked) generics? Does anyone ever actually need k8s? Is nosql always the wrong choi…

To be fair, none of those other debates have anything to do with finances and wealth tools or vehicles. There's inherently less incentive to scam people with those things because it won't make someone rich to do so (at least nowhere near the extent that other options, like stealing digital financial assets, would). Email and websites in general have tons of scams associated with it, to the point where I'm required fo…

False equivalence. Email and websites have immense self-evident utility, thus they do not need to be defended. Web3 doesn't actually solve any of the problems it claims to, so the proselytizers are always fighting hard to downplay all the problems it creates.
Post reply on HN