I don't know what Web3 will be represented by, but Web4 will be operated with sticks and stones...
Is Web3 Bullshit?
61–70 of 383 posts
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#62It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.
My sadness comes from the fact people perceive X N as better than X N-1. As if web got any better with 2 (in a general sense, not in tech). And what’s this anyway, The Web? Are we spiders, or maybe fishermen? Ridiculous. Don’t stick too much to these names.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#63Reading through the linked article on "real world uses for Web3", most of them seem to consist of things that public key cryptography has been able to solve for decades (persistent identity, multiple persistent identities) or things you could do anyway ("right now, people can only go to facebook or Google. With Web3, everyone can have their own space!!") because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server.…
> because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server. But blockchains do introduce a technical capability that never existed before: shared, “trustless” access to and control over data. Previously, you could run your own webserver, your own email server, etc, and you could trust your own data, but other people collaborating with you would need to trust you to manage that data, and trust that you hadn’t man…
> But blockchains do introduce a technical capability that never existed before: shared, “trustless” access to and control over data.
I don’t think blockchains control access over data at all without the integration of other technologies (i.e. using public key authentication to prove to some third-party service that you hold a key that performed a blockchain transaction). They only control permissions to update things on-chain and everything on the chain is still publicly readable anyway. PKI is capable of doing the same thing and has existed for a very long time.
> Sure, other people could keep their own copy of that same data, and sync with you somehow, but most pre-blockchain data services lack replication capability out of the box, and as far as I know there are no non-blockchain data services that can give you any assurances at all that data has not been tampered with.
Look at the existing NFT mess. The problem here is that the blockchain _doesn’t_ replicate anything other than a bit of metadata for these types of applications — the content still has to be stored elsewhere, often on a classic web server which is centralised and can go down any time.
If you want an example of something that replicates data and guarantees integrity then look at IPFS.
> Federated application services capable of competing with big tech have been a dream and an objective of open-source advocates for decades, but no one has been able to deliver. I would say the major reason is because trustless data syncing at scale is orders of magnitude harder than running a single standalone server, and all of the solutions until web3 attempted to perform data syncing at the application layer—which means a lot of duplicated effort, and almost zero opportunity for reuse between projects.
Blockchain’s answer to “federation is hard” is just to replicate the entire chain to all participants and have all participants repeat the exact same work to arrive at the same position. This is not exactly a glamouring success story of how to avoid “duplicated effort” — in fact, duplicated effort is a fundamental part of the blockchain architecture.
> Blockchain tech moves replication and tampering protection to the data layer, as a generalized service that is relatively trivial to set up. The promise of web3 is that shared-data applications can be built on top of that data layer in the same way that complex centralized applications can be built on well-defined centralized data layers like the file system and the relational database.
This isn’t really true though — it’s more like the blockchain provides a tamperproof metadata store. Putting actual quantities of information onto a typical blockchain is either prohibitively expensive computationally (it needs to be replicated everywhere) or prohibitively expensive financially (Ethereum gas costs as an example).
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#64Crypto fans are always hurling accusations of FOMO on those of us who just "don't get it".
But web3 strikes me as those very same people experiencing FOMO because they missed out printing a bunch of money for themselves in the early days of the web by actually providing novel value - which in hindsight now all looks like really obvious low-hanging fruit, hence the FOMO - so they're hoping to "get in on the ground floor" by rebooting the web and inserting themselves into and extracting a payment from every single transaction and interaction on this new web, hoping we use their magical tokens - which oh by the way are also speculative investments that they currently own a bunch of and you don't - as the currency.
Of course, I'm just a hater who doesn't get it.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#65Reading through the linked article on "real world uses for Web3", most of them seem to consist of things that public key cryptography has been able to solve for decades (persistent identity, multiple persistent identities) or things you could do anyway ("right now, people can only go to facebook or Google. With Web3, everyone can have their own space!!") because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server.…
> because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server. This gives me the initial dropbox dismissal comment (you can do it trivially with ftp) vibe... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
Sure but the difference was that Dropbox was an order of magnitude more accessible and convenient in its experience. web3 has yet to make anything tangibly better than the thing it wants to replace - only more convoluted, risky, and expensive. It turns operations that were free and instant into operations that cost significant money and take minutes/hours
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the writer has apparently never heard of a web server. This is a constant issue I have with crypto advocates. Most of the use cases can be done with crypto, but also with other techs (sometimes it's as simple as "we need a database for this"). But there's never a serious analysis of why those use cases have not been covered with previous tech, and when you point out that there might be issues other than the…
I love pointing out that if it becomes a serious currency banks would offer bitcoin-denominated loans (causing an increase in money supply); and if there's then a credit crunch the Fed could offer bitcoin-denominated (but unbacked) bonds. It would be like the gold standard all over again.
I'm curious why you think this is the case. It's close to impossible (good luck convincing people to devalue their money) to increase the Bitcoin supply other than through minig.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#67I have the impression that most comments here are either biased against cryptocurrencies or trying to push for them blindly. That's a bit sad considering we should at least be discussing the technology here. web3 is a marketing brand that defines a future version of web apps where the frontend is a compiled SPA possibly hosted on decentralised platforms (IPFS) and where the backend is a decentralised blockchain (and…
I've been Googling the word SPA and I keep finding places to go for a holiday, but nothing relevant to what you're talking about.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#68It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.
I agree that cryptocurrency is a pyramid scheme, but the web is incredibly centralized.
The whole point of DNS is to normalize an easy to remember name to an address so that everyone can access that same address easily. That is almost the purest essence of centralization.
In practice if you want to share family photos with your family do you upload those photos to a third party like a social media site or a cloud provider for all your family to access? That is centralized: an agreed upon location for everyone to access.
In contrast decentralization means no third party. Grandma pushing the family photos directly onto the kids hard drive from across the network, for example.
The confusion here is most people confuse the web for the internet. The internet is a big decentralized network thanks to BGP. The web is an application riding that network thanks to HTTP.
The goal of the web, as it was invented. was to allow decentralized content access via hyperlinks. That vision is essentially dead. Content is now an index on a database behind a walled garden.
On the web content is king. In a true decentralized platform autonomy and availability are king while content is trivial.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#69I have the impression that most comments here are either biased against cryptocurrencies or trying to push for them blindly. That's a bit sad considering we should at least be discussing the technology here. web3 is a marketing brand that defines a future version of web apps where the frontend is a compiled SPA possibly hosted on decentralised platforms (IPFS) and where the backend is a decentralised blockchain (and…
I've been Googling the word SPA and I keep finding places to go for a holiday, but nothing relevant to what you're talking about.
SPA in this context would likely mean Single Page App. A Javascript module, to be run in a browser.
Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?
#70It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.
Yes web was decentralised till it became centralised with big tech gatekeepers. AMZN makes more money from sellers fee than AWS now. Thus killing small businesses - the lifeblood of most economies. Link below. It is time to get rid of gatekeepers, toll collector and have control of our data & communities. Web 3 is a way do that and will take about a decade as the infra builds out. So it certainly is BS for big tech l…
Amazon has been fantastic for my small business.
The fees aren't too crippling (around 15% of revenue) and FBA is an absolute Godsend for anyone based outside of the US trying to crack into that market (similar for Europe).
I could not thank Mr. Bezos more for the opportunities Amazon has given my family. The income from FBA was a major factor in my decision to quit my job back in 2020, and because of that my daughter can be with her daddy every single day.