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

Web3 is a stupid idea

timdaub.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 220 posts

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#141

Post by poetaster »

yunohn wrote: post #76
okdjnfweonfe wrote: post #45

Really wish progressive enhancement was chosen as the first thing, want to get rid of the backend db? ok, two APIs, store to extension-managed DB (e.g. flatfiles in the home directory, or shunted onto something managed with LDAP, or loaded onto some weird coin thing on a local light node, or etc), or in environments where extensions are fussy / overcomplicated, store to another website via a http api (la https://remo…

> If you were to decide to write your data onto a gold ingot Why do crypto enthusiasts feel the need to use gold as a strawman? The vast majority of non-crypto people use digital money (in local currencies), and have never touched gold in their lives. Digital money works great, and doesn’t need a blockchain.

Trade unions beat inflation by helping negotiate higher wages.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#142

Post by warkdarrior »

Wazako wrote: post #114
aty268 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here though is that web 3 really is just 'technical details' to most people. PC's had potential, they were getting cheaper, faster, and more software was being written for them every day. People could play video games, and show off to their friends. Web 3 has none of that, it's all just technical details that 90% of the population doesn't care about one bit.

Web3 is money! The web2.0 it is impossible to make transactions between people, sites, and others. It's easier to put an ad than to ask the visitor for money. Imagine the possibility of creating feedback with automatic micro-payments!

That may not be the selling point you think it is, since most people are not creators looking to monetize their content. Your statement then sounds like: "Envision web3: your opportunity to pay to visit any website!"

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#144

Post by Vinnl »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #48

https://solidproject.org/

> We should stop building key-management plugins and start thinking about a standardizable web API. We must stop training our users to install shitty browser plugins!

Interestingly Solid also used to have an authentication system based on in-browser certificates (WebID-TLS), then switched to an OIDC-based system (Solid-OIDC).

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#145

Post by warkdarrior »

vmoore wrote: post #59

Web3 is hardly stupid (it's actually very clever). The name if off-putting more than anything. When I think of Web 3.0, I think of augmented reality, every physical thing having its own QR code which you can look up easily with a smartphone. And if the thing is too small, it could have a chip in it that communicates with NFC and you could learn more about your environment. We're still sort of there, but the dream of…

I think you and the author have completely different definitions of "web 3".

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#146

Post by poetaster »

jollybean wrote: post #116
derefr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I answer: why are you asking this in response to the definition of a piece of technical jargon? What makes something "web3", and whether anyone should care about "web3", are separate questions. Nevertheless, the answer is: because web standards don't allow browsers and other only-speaks-HTTP clients, to interact with regular peer-to-peer protocols, preventing them from participating in [the existing networks s…

Seems to me that Web3 is focused on Etherium, which is definitely a specific kind of 'P2P' if you want to use that term. That 'broad generalized use-case' you articulated isn't really a 'use case'. It's not really a problem that needs solving. And of course a browser plugin solves can get around those problems. The issue is that this entire stack of technology doesn't do anything that people really need or want. Ethe…

So it is tcp/ip, then and not web at all. Way, man, way. I'll stick to udp abuse, thanks.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#147

Post by xtracto »

binarymax wrote: post #81
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #53

It was only this year that I actually got excited about Ethereum specifically because of what "web3" enables. Yes it's a dumb name, and this article certainly doesn't cover all of the issues, shit just look at the confirmation page for metamask, it literally just asks you if you want to spend X to submit a byte array. No link to the contract, the method you are calling, any avaliable adudits etc. But if you as a read…

Your last phrase is really what gets me. Why should any web delivery platform get "clogged up" by content? If this becomes popular, then it just gets slower and more painful to use in ways that aren't fixed by adding more infrastructure? Also, what is the value add that can be explained to someone who just wants to use the web and leaving the jargon like permisionlessness and composability aside? What reason would an…

It reminds me of 90s internet: First, there was the web. Then we got images slowly downloading at 56kbps. Then we got MODs and Midi , and suddenly we had MP3s clogging the existing 56kbps infrastructure. Until we started getting ISDN and broadband: 128k , 256k ! And we got RealVideo ... which kept 'buffering' and clogging the infrastructure. Later we got mp4, bittorrent and whatnot. This absolutely clogged our low speed broadband. Nowadays we've got CDNs, gigabyte size game updates, ultra hi def netflix a d 500 Mbps connections.

I'm so excited to see that we are in the VERY early stages of blockchain value networks, and I hope I live the next 20 years to see this technology when it gets to the "500mbps" equivalent of what we've got now for 'the internet'

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#148

Post by whywhywhywhy »

I was pretty disappointed when I realized how much of this was just funnelling through one company, Infura to actually function at all.

Always assumed Metamask and web3.js was interfacing with the network directly in a decentralized way until I dug in and started coding with it myself.

Still think the promise of an identity you can truly own and authenticate with that has finance built in is important in taking the web back from the megacorps.

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#149

Post by riddleronroof »

rewtraw wrote: post #100

A large chunk of my internet experience lately has been on web3, and the experience is _wonderful_ despite it's immaturity. It's incredible to be able to go to different websites (Zapper, Zerion, OpenSea, etc.) and simply have all my data already exist -- without needing to create an account, export/import. web3 makes me believe in a new era of the internet that isn't full of ads, cookie consent forms, dozens of sign…

Pardon my ignorance. Couldn’t those websites use other data (IP/geo) with your wallet address to figure out who you are?

Re: Web3 is a stupid idea

#150

Post by poetaster »

jollybean wrote: post #116
derefr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I answer: why are you asking this in response to the definition of a piece of technical jargon? What makes something "web3", and whether anyone should care about "web3", are separate questions. Nevertheless, the answer is: because web standards don't allow browsers and other only-speaks-HTTP clients, to interact with regular peer-to-peer protocols, preventing them from participating in [the existing networks s…

Seems to me that Web3 is focused on Etherium, which is definitely a specific kind of 'P2P' if you want to use that term. That 'broad generalized use-case' you articulated isn't really a 'use case'. It's not really a problem that needs solving. And of course a browser plugin solves can get around those problems. The issue is that this entire stack of technology doesn't do anything that people really need or want. Ethe…

And many people install adblockerz. Soon they will install blockchain blockers?
Post reply on HN