Web3 Is Bullshit

> On a compute basis, blockchain networks don’t scale except by becoming the very same plutocratic and centralized systems they allegedly were designed to replace.

That sentence right there is when I stopped reading and realized the author doesn't understand the technology they are criticizing.

The word "plutocratic" is linked to the Wikipedia definition for Proof of Stake. PoS is not meant to increase scalability, its meant to increase efficiency and network decentralization and reduce the cost of running a validator. Switching to PoS on its own doesn't increase the ability of the network to handle more transactions or speed them up.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#5

Post by throwaheyy » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

Good, someone finally put it into words.

It’s only crypto-bros who are trying to push “web3” as even a “thing”. Kind of like Zuckerberg and the metaverse. Their delusions of grandeur are so great as to warrant an increment in the web’s metaphorical major version number, but nobody else gives a shit.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#6

Post by zelag » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

The author has a huge conflict of interest whenever he writes about cryptocurrency, seeing as he's the founder of Adjoint, Inc, a company which digitizes cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates.

The site in question: http://www.adjoint.io/

this was originally brought up by robot_no_419 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121532 all props go to him.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#7

Post by okareaman » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #4

> On a compute basis, blockchain networks don’t scale except by becoming the very same plutocratic and centralized systems they allegedly were designed to replace. That sentence right there is when I stopped reading and realized the author doesn't understand the technology they are criticizing. The word "plutocratic" is linked to the Wikipedia definition for Proof of Stake. PoS is not meant to increase scalability, i…

> the author doesn't understand the technology they are criticizing

I've been following Stephen Diehl and he seems to have a greater understanding than most, even if he is consistently bearish on the technology and I'm not always in agreement.

I don't see the issue you are having:

adjective: plutocratic relating to or characterized by government by the wealthy.

Proof of stake (PoS) protocols are a class of consensus mechanisms for blockchains that work by selecting validators in proportion to their quantity of holdings in the associated cryptocurrency.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#8

Post by okareaman » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

zelag wrote: post #6

The author has a huge conflict of interest whenever he writes about cryptocurrency, seeing as he's the founder of Adjoint, Inc, a company which digitizes cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates. The site in question: http://www.adjoint.io/ this was originally brought up by robot_no_419 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121532 all props go to him.

This makes him more qualified in my eyes to write about crypto currency. He's bearish on it. I'd be a fool not to listen to all sides of the argument.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#9

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

Whatever your stance on Web3 is, major kudos for the Dune deep dive analytical allusion, and Tim O’Reilly’s masterful book on the novel (which contrasts it with Asimov’s Foundation).

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#10

Post by jazzyjackson » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

zelag wrote: post #6

The author has a huge conflict of interest whenever he writes about cryptocurrency, seeing as he's the founder of Adjoint, Inc, a company which digitizes cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates. The site in question: http://www.adjoint.io/ this was originally brought up by robot_no_419 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27121532 all props go to him.

I don’t understand the use of “conflict of interest” here, the author is expressing an opinion, plainly explaining which “side” they are on, no other context required.

It’s not as if the author is trying to pass legislation or close a business deal without disclosing how they’ll benefit. Like my sibling says, that the author puts their money where their mouth is by placing bets against crypto only makes their opinion more credible.