61–70 of 191 posts
This was in a GameDev club at university in the UK. I wonder where all these web3 advocates are coming from, maybe it is just a loud minority, or maybe that fact that they're game developers makes a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mastodon is not decentralized, it's federated. So no, it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3.
> Mastodon is not decentralized it's federated Are you saying that this federation is not a form of decentralization? I'm pretty sure that Mastodon is not centralised like Twitter is. This is akin to the pedant/trolls who usually pop up and say "the USA is not a democracy, it's a republic!" in conversations that compare the USA's regular elections to dictatorial autocracies. https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-re…
There are really interesting use cases of "Web3" As an example, consider domains. Ethereum Name Service domains are currently one of the most popular. If you use these domains, you instantly have access to the 10,000,000 people using MetaMask, and the 50,000,000 people using Brave Browser. They're actually very powerful when considering the centralization of normal domains. They allow you to create decentralized doma…
How do you deal with domain squatting or trademark violation? The current system does this well because of identity and web3 doesn't have any answer to this. Also I can host my own DNS server with my own domain name all decentralised without crypto scamming.
In practice, it rarely works. Only big corporations have money to actually sue and win these cases. They usually prefer to pay however.
Same with regards to other reasons people give for lack of adoption of crypto alternative.
For example, lack of reversal and dispute handling is cited as the major reason why crypto currency isn't used for payments. That's just not true.
UPI in India does not have ability to reverse transactions either. So does not countless p2p payment systems. UPI alone processes billions of transactions weekly.
I think all these high level concerns aren't the reason for lack of adoption. They might indicate lack of corporate adoption but at the core level, I would think lack of a widely used consumer DNS like 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1 is a bigger hurdle. Both of them won't resolve ENS and any other crypto based alternative.
Your average person is never going to run their own local DNS resolution node and switch it in their browsers.
In iOT and smart devices like TV, DNS is often hard coded so impossible to change.
Isn't it happening all the time? Web3, crypto, AI, kubernetes, microservices, docker, server side rendering, SPA, react, graphql, backend in frontend, DevOps, DevSecOps, fullstack, mongodb, new features in mongodb that mimic sql, Restful, mobile, django/rails, agile, kanban. Some of them make sense, some of them make sense for some of the people, some will be forgotten from history. And those forgotten, will reemerge…
I've always really struggled with this category of reply, and I'm trying to figure out why.
I think it's because I can sense that some ideological battle has been lost, that the person giving this reply has bought into the (charitably) "hype framing" that disingenuous advocates have set up.
It's a very exhausting kind of reply, since it takes forever to reply to. You have to explain all the ways X isnt like Y. And to a person who has quickly adopted a pathological framing of the issue.
There are really interesting use cases of "Web3" As an example, consider domains. Ethereum Name Service domains are currently one of the most popular. If you use these domains, you instantly have access to the 10,000,000 people using MetaMask, and the 50,000,000 people using Brave Browser. They're actually very powerful when considering the centralization of normal domains. They allow you to create decentralized doma…
I've installed both products maybe five years ago, tried a few things and gave up, and there's no incentive in sight that would make me use them again. I suspect they're still counting me as a user on the brave web3 frontier because I have some wallets whose private keys I've lost ages ago.
And yes, you can't just go from one to the other, it's a completely different way of running a product.
In Web3's case, it does not signal they are excited about web3 or crypto or blockchain. It signals that they are frustrated by the current order, the incumbents, and they want change, and see web3 as a gateway to that radical change. It may or may not bring out an actual change, thats not important in this context. It's about whether they are sufficiently disillusioned by incumbents to believe in a new thing as a solution to things wrong with the world. Whether or not things would change is the next step, and admittedly a pitfall of many of these campaigns in the past. I am not optimistic about it working, though I think lack of clear solution does not indicate a lack of severity of the problem.
In a way, climate change is moving in the same direction. [2]
[1]: Omitting the whole redefining of gender and sexual orientation for obvious avoiding-culture-war reasons.
"In the web3 crypto world, big venture capital is the biggest champion of decentralisation, self-sovereignty, free speech, and anti-BigTech efforts?" This is a function of a hostile SEC and regulatory regime to the concept of decentralized fundraising. Everyone is afraid of being labeled a security. Most recently, LBRY, a decentralized YouTube-like startup that seemed to have their heart in the right place and built…
(Which also, by analogy repeats the 'adaptive front-end' trend whereby web2 had to reinvent scaling pages to fit screens that was already native to web0).
The trend of returning to "web0" has always been present, and likely always will be. It doesnt require new technology. It requires people to want to pay the implicit transaction and communication costs (time, skill, etc.) inherent in that, original, vision of the web.
To "bring back web0" one only needs to peel back everything else and provide simplified interfaces, etc. to using it. These do exist. But of course, they arent popular.
Blockchain is popular, and that is as far away from this spirit as you can get. It's a trick. A con. A technological sideally full of people with knives. Decentralisation is already how everything is built.
Crypto is a means of rent seeking on the worst possible version of that you can imagine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mastodon is not decentralized, it's federated. So no, it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3.
> Mastodon is not decentralized it's federated Are you saying that this federation is not a form of decentralization? I'm pretty sure that Mastodon is not centralised like Twitter is. This is akin to the pedant/trolls who usually pop up and say "the USA is not a democracy, it's a republic!" in conversations that compare the USA's regular elections to dictatorial autocracies. https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-re…
In practice, many federated platforms turn into cartels of giant centralized providers. It's better than Twitter, but not something I'd call decentralization.
There are really interesting use cases of "Web3" As an example, consider domains. Ethereum Name Service domains are currently one of the most popular. If you use these domains, you instantly have access to the 10,000,000 people using MetaMask, and the 50,000,000 people using Brave Browser. They're actually very powerful when considering the centralization of normal domains. They allow you to create decentralized doma…
Are there really 10M active MetaMask users and 50M active Brave users? I mean, that's a lot. Twitter has ~200M daily active users and it's a service everybody knows. I've installed both products maybe five years ago, tried a few things and gave up, and there's no incentive in sight that would make me use them again. I suspect they're still counting me as a user on the brave web3 frontier because I have some wallets w…
[1] https://brave.com/2021-recap/
[2] https://decrypt.co/95039/metamask-consensys-30-million-users
[3] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/metamask/nkbihfbeo...