12 ms·

> with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? While I am entertained by soc

by drb91 8y ago

> with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? While I am entertained by social media, I can't remember the last time I actually interacted with anyone in a substantive way. I'd much rather hit the bar and admit to myself that social media isn't very social.

Alex3917 8y ago
> Web 1.0 lets individuals create and express ideas > Web 2.0 lets groups create and express ideas > Web 3.0 lets societies create and express ideas It's blockchain. Blockchain is what gets us from web 2.0 to web 3.0. The technology is almost here, and after another few years of basic R&D the stuff we're going to be able to start building is going to transform society in ways that are barely even imaginable today.
- dangerlibrary 8y ago
  I have no idea if this comment is satire.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
    Wow that guy got a lot of responses quick, I feel trolled.
- Qwertie 8y ago
  Could you explain exactly how blockchains allow societies to create ideas? I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not. So at the software developer level of the stack, what we get are new tools for managing reputation, identity, authentication, transparency, accountability, etc. If you think of people as a graph of nodes, these tools enable novel patterns of trust and collaboration between individuals that aren't possible today. What this means is that every institution will ultimately have to reimagine itself so as to be cost competitive in the new paradigm, HT Carlota Perez. To give a more concrete example, think of the 2008 real estate collapse. The reason the market failed isn't because people didn't have the data, it's because no one one going to read through a 3,000 page paper print out to figure out what was actually in whatever debt tranche they happened to buy. But when you can just run a simple Python script to analyze the contents of all that debt and get updates on payments in real time, suddenly those types of systematic market failures can no longer happen. And because a big portion of the lemon market problem is ameliorated, that creates new ways to finance big capital investments that would be completely impossible today. Think about why we weren't able to have large corporations before double entry was invented/popularized in Florence in the late 1400s, because there was no way to really know if you were making or losing money once you got beyond a certain scale. Because blockchain reduces the costs of double entry accounting by 10,000x, we can (and will) restructure all aspects of society in ways that just aren't possible currently, everything from supply chains to social networks. I think it stands to reason that blockchain is going to be the most financially important technology of the last 500 years, since imho it's the biggest innovation since double entry accounting.
    - shawn 8y ago
      There's just one small problem: Blockchains are massive, slow, and it takes new users hours or days to join an old blockchain. Once those miiiinor problems are solved, I'll agree. It makes sense as a store of value. But a realtime database that requires rapid, possibly millisecond-accurate entries? It just hasn't happened yet. Not on a scale that works in practice, anyway. Example: I tried to use Namecoin a couple days ago. I got bored and quit after a few hours of "Synchronizing network". It seems to have consumed several GB. I just wanted to register a .bit domain. I didn't even get to "How do I acquire namecoin?" because (a) there is no clear "go here and pay this dude" service, and (b) you have to have GBs of free space just to try it. Such experiences are typical of blockchain, and this seems to murder consumer adoption.
      - Alex3917 8y ago
        > it takes new users hours or days to join an old blockchain The main reason for decentralization is to prevent collusion. But the risk of collusion decreases very quickly even with relatively limited amounts of decentralization. E.g. a consortium of even 10 independent banks would be much less likely to steal your money than Wells Fargo alone. So while there will always be some use cases where power users will want to validate the entire chain, in practice I think we can get 99% of the benefits of decentralization with even a handful of nodes. Bitcoin wouldn't be trustworthy under this model since anyone can jump in and mine, but it's possible to create networks that are trustworthy in this way. In terms of scalability, the three main contenders right now to be the next generation general purpose blockchain are Hashgraph, DFINITY, and RChain, with a couple dozen other dark horse contenders as well (protocol labs, eos, tezos, etc.) We don't know if any of them actually work yet, in the same way we didn't know whether or not Bitcoin was actually secure in 2010. But there is a bunch of stuff that will be launching in the next couple years and then slowly battle tested over the next decade while we figure out what really works. Most consumer apps are still going to be driven just by Postgres or whatever, with data only validated on the chain when it actually needs to be. E.g. if you're buying a house, it's probably fine to take Zillow's word on the transaction history if you're just casually browsing, but then if you're getting serious about buying you can always hit the button to go directly to the chain explorer or whatever.
  - shawn 8y ago
    Alex isn't wrong. But I don't think it's blockchain. It's decentralization in general. For example, I want to release a tool that can mod old ROMs. I cannot legally sell this. This is a new idea, I'd like to make a living with it, but I can't. And why not? Because the concept of IP has turned us into servants. Meanwhile you have youtube series like Freeman's Mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQhfkpX9bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQhfkpX9bc making a killing, and I'm preeeetty sure he didn't ask Valve for permission. Nintendo is possibly the most litigious game company in history, and will aggressively shut down anything remotely connected to any of their characters. The whole situation is completely fucked for artists, and decentralization can solve it. Unfortunately it looks like I'm born a couple generations too early to benefit, but at least my kids might.
    - lsalvatore 8y ago
      Maybe those "fucked" artists should invent their own characters. You know, being creative instead of copying other people's ideas.
      - shawn 8y ago
        Just like Disney did with Alice in Wonderland, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 "And now you, dear filmmaker, want to come along and want to make your own version of Star Wars: A New Hope? For shame! That's like stealing food right out of George Lucas' mouth."
        hcknwscommenter 8y ago
        Your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. It is perfectly acceptable to copy the basic "idea" of a story. You just can't copy or make derivative works of Star Wars or Alice in Wonderland themselves, but you can copy all the themes and ideas thereof.
        shawn 8y ago
        The argument is that it's harmful for society to restrict artists from remixing other people's work. And when you put it that way, how could it be otherwise? We'll have to agree to disagree that it'd cause problems for people to be able to tell a Darth Vader story.
  - endgame 8y ago
    It's also a way of doing leaderless agreement about distributed platforms in low-trust environments. I'm no blockchain fanatic, bit ISTM that a decentralised discussion board could require the spending of tokens to make posts. The market should hopefully make the tokens of desirable communities more expensive, which discourages cheap, low-effort posts. AFAICT, before blockchain you could have decentralisation or paid posting but not both.
    - lev99 8y ago
      I cannot envision myself joining a community like the one you described unless the utility of the community was very high. I do not think that paid posting will improve the average utility of a community, but I am open to examples showing I am incorrect. The best publications pay people to write for them, not the other way around.
      - Qworg 8y ago
        If the average utility is calculated as ideas by they who have the most money, then you're golden. I agree completely - why would paid posting do anything but create a chilling effect on anyone but the wealthy?
      - endgame 8y ago
        I honestly don't know, it's just an idea that's been kicking around in my head. If posting is cheap but spamming is expensive, then you might get better standards. If the forum becomes valuable then you might be able to reward the people who make it great? Except StackOverflow tried that with rep, and locked in all sorts of broken feedback loops. If the forumtokens fluctuate wildly in value it would probably kill the forum too, particularly if the only way to get them was through the market. I can't think of any way to algorithmically deal out tokens to posters that doesn't reward at least one of: multiple accounts, spamming, or writing outrage bait.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Distributed Ledger Technologies are unilaterally being called web 3.0 by the blockchain community. This isn't THAT different than a bunch of startups calling things web 2.0 five to ten years ago. so just roll with it. The Ethereum project's javascript library is literally called web3.js
- tw04 8y ago
  I'll bite. How on Earth does blockchain in any way improve social media? Even an ounce?
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  Those are not the conventionally understood definitions of web 1 and 2. 1 is about bringing massive audiences to conventional publishing. 2 is about democratizing the creator pool and welcoming p2p and ucg. I have no idea what you mean by societies.
- jeremylylebrown 8y ago
  What sort of R&D needs to be accomplished for blockchain to hit the transformative stage? And how does it lead to web 3.0?
- na85 8y ago
  Name some problem that blockchain solves that isn't already solved, other than "make illicit financial transactions". I'll wait.
  - felix_nagaand 8y ago
    Chain of custody.
  - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
    Escrow.
- pymai 8y ago
  the safe network will be live in a few years so don't waste your time on r&d
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
grimbly 8y ago
Since when was the bar ever a "substantive" way to interact with people?
rqs 8y ago
> What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? Off topic but, you know what, maybe it eventually will. Just like in the movie Ready Player One, nothing says it couldn't be done. Maybe the reduce of physical interaction between people are not caused by social medias, maybe just because people don't want to spend time and energy (or, lazy) on those physical interactions. If meet with friends face to face cost 2 bars of power, and interact with them on social media cost 1 bar, I think many people will rather to save 1 bar, so they can do more tings (like, take a nap).
mrep 8y ago
You're interacting with us right now :)
- drb91 8y ago
  Oh I do agree there! I just don’t file forums under “social media” in the sense most people bemoan the concept.

by drb91 8y ago

Alex3917 8y ago

> Web 1.0 lets individuals create and express ideas > Web 2.0 lets groups create and express ideas > Web 3.0 lets societies create and express ideas It's blockchain. Blockchain is what gets us from web 2.0 to web 3.0. The technology is almost here, and after another few years of basic R&D the stuff we're going to be able to start building is going to transform society in ways that are barely even imaginable today.

dangerlibrary 8y ago
I have no idea if this comment is satire.
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  Wow that guy got a lot of responses quick, I feel trolled.
Qwertie 8y ago
Could you explain exactly how blockchains allow societies to create ideas? I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not. So at the software developer level of the stack, what we get are new tools for managing reputation, identity, authentication, transparency, accountability, etc. If you think of people as a graph of nodes, these tools enable novel patterns of trust and collaboration between individuals that aren't possible today. What this means is that every institution will ultimately have to reimagine itself so as to be cost competitive in the new paradigm, HT Carlota Perez. To give a more concrete example, think of the 2008 real estate collapse. The reason the market failed isn't because people didn't have the data, it's because no one one going to read through a 3,000 page paper print out to figure out what was actually in whatever debt tranche they happened to buy. But when you can just run a simple Python script to analyze the contents of all that debt and get updates on payments in real time, suddenly those types of systematic market failures can no longer happen. And because a big portion of the lemon market problem is ameliorated, that creates new ways to finance big capital investments that would be completely impossible today. Think about why we weren't able to have large corporations before double entry was invented/popularized in Florence in the late 1400s, because there was no way to really know if you were making or losing money once you got beyond a certain scale. Because blockchain reduces the costs of double entry accounting by 10,000x, we can (and will) restructure all aspects of society in ways that just aren't possible currently, everything from supply chains to social networks. I think it stands to reason that blockchain is going to be the most financially important technology of the last 500 years, since imho it's the biggest innovation since double entry accounting.
  - shawn 8y ago
    There's just one small problem: Blockchains are massive, slow, and it takes new users hours or days to join an old blockchain. Once those miiiinor problems are solved, I'll agree. It makes sense as a store of value. But a realtime database that requires rapid, possibly millisecond-accurate entries? It just hasn't happened yet. Not on a scale that works in practice, anyway. Example: I tried to use Namecoin a couple days ago. I got bored and quit after a few hours of "Synchronizing network". It seems to have consumed several GB. I just wanted to register a .bit domain. I didn't even get to "How do I acquire namecoin?" because (a) there is no clear "go here and pay this dude" service, and (b) you have to have GBs of free space just to try it. Such experiences are typical of blockchain, and this seems to murder consumer adoption.
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      > it takes new users hours or days to join an old blockchain The main reason for decentralization is to prevent collusion. But the risk of collusion decreases very quickly even with relatively limited amounts of decentralization. E.g. a consortium of even 10 independent banks would be much less likely to steal your money than Wells Fargo alone. So while there will always be some use cases where power users will want to validate the entire chain, in practice I think we can get 99% of the benefits of decentralization with even a handful of nodes. Bitcoin wouldn't be trustworthy under this model since anyone can jump in and mine, but it's possible to create networks that are trustworthy in this way. In terms of scalability, the three main contenders right now to be the next generation general purpose blockchain are Hashgraph, DFINITY, and RChain, with a couple dozen other dark horse contenders as well (protocol labs, eos, tezos, etc.) We don't know if any of them actually work yet, in the same way we didn't know whether or not Bitcoin was actually secure in 2010. But there is a bunch of stuff that will be launching in the next couple years and then slowly battle tested over the next decade while we figure out what really works. Most consumer apps are still going to be driven just by Postgres or whatever, with data only validated on the chain when it actually needs to be. E.g. if you're buying a house, it's probably fine to take Zillow's word on the transaction history if you're just casually browsing, but then if you're getting serious about buying you can always hit the button to go directly to the chain explorer or whatever.
- shawn 8y ago
  Alex isn't wrong. But I don't think it's blockchain. It's decentralization in general. For example, I want to release a tool that can mod old ROMs. I cannot legally sell this. This is a new idea, I'd like to make a living with it, but I can't. And why not? Because the concept of IP has turned us into servants. Meanwhile you have youtube series like Freeman's Mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQhfkpX9bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SQhfkpX9bc making a killing, and I'm preeeetty sure he didn't ask Valve for permission. Nintendo is possibly the most litigious game company in history, and will aggressively shut down anything remotely connected to any of their characters. The whole situation is completely fucked for artists, and decentralization can solve it. Unfortunately it looks like I'm born a couple generations too early to benefit, but at least my kids might.
  - lsalvatore 8y ago
    Maybe those "fucked" artists should invent their own characters. You know, being creative instead of copying other people's ideas.
    - shawn 8y ago
      Just like Disney did with Alice in Wonderland, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 "And now you, dear filmmaker, want to come along and want to make your own version of Star Wars: A New Hope? For shame! That's like stealing food right out of George Lucas' mouth."
      - hcknwscommenter 8y ago
        Your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. It is perfectly acceptable to copy the basic "idea" of a story. You just can't copy or make derivative works of Star Wars or Alice in Wonderland themselves, but you can copy all the themes and ideas thereof.
        shawn 8y ago
        The argument is that it's harmful for society to restrict artists from remixing other people's work. And when you put it that way, how could it be otherwise? We'll have to agree to disagree that it'd cause problems for people to be able to tell a Darth Vader story.
- endgame 8y ago
  It's also a way of doing leaderless agreement about distributed platforms in low-trust environments. I'm no blockchain fanatic, bit ISTM that a decentralised discussion board could require the spending of tokens to make posts. The market should hopefully make the tokens of desirable communities more expensive, which discourages cheap, low-effort posts. AFAICT, before blockchain you could have decentralisation or paid posting but not both.
  - lev99 8y ago
    I cannot envision myself joining a community like the one you described unless the utility of the community was very high. I do not think that paid posting will improve the average utility of a community, but I am open to examples showing I am incorrect. The best publications pay people to write for them, not the other way around.
    - Qworg 8y ago
      If the average utility is calculated as ideas by they who have the most money, then you're golden. I agree completely - why would paid posting do anything but create a chilling effect on anyone but the wealthy?
    - endgame 8y ago
      I honestly don't know, it's just an idea that's been kicking around in my head. If posting is cheap but spamming is expensive, then you might get better standards. If the forum becomes valuable then you might be able to reward the people who make it great? Except StackOverflow tried that with rep, and locked in all sorts of broken feedback loops. If the forumtokens fluctuate wildly in value it would probably kill the forum too, particularly if the only way to get them was through the market. I can't think of any way to algorithmically deal out tokens to posters that doesn't reward at least one of: multiple accounts, spamming, or writing outrage bait.
- gammateam 8y ago
  Distributed Ledger Technologies are unilaterally being called web 3.0 by the blockchain community. This isn't THAT different than a bunch of startups calling things web 2.0 five to ten years ago. so just roll with it. The Ethereum project's javascript library is literally called web3.js
tw04 8y ago
I'll bite. How on Earth does blockchain in any way improve social media? Even an ounce?
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
Those are not the conventionally understood definitions of web 1 and 2. 1 is about bringing massive audiences to conventional publishing. 2 is about democratizing the creator pool and welcoming p2p and ucg. I have no idea what you mean by societies.
jeremylylebrown 8y ago
What sort of R&D needs to be accomplished for blockchain to hit the transformative stage? And how does it lead to web 3.0?
na85 8y ago
Name some problem that blockchain solves that isn't already solved, other than "make illicit financial transactions". I'll wait.
- felix_nagaand 8y ago
  Chain of custody.
- Karrot_Kream 8y ago
  Escrow.
pymai 8y ago
the safe network will be live in a few years so don't waste your time on r&d

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

grimbly 8y ago

Since when was the bar ever a "substantive" way to interact with people?

rqs 8y ago

> What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? Off topic but, you know what, maybe it eventually will. Just like in the movie Ready Player One, nothing says it couldn't be done. Maybe the reduce of physical interaction between people are not caused by social medias, maybe just because people don't want to spend time and energy (or, lazy) on those physical interactions. If meet with friends face to face cost 2 bars of power, and interact with them on social media cost 1 bar, I think many people will rather to save 1 bar, so they can do more tings (like, take a nap).

mrep 8y ago

You're interacting with us right now :)

drb91 8y ago
Oh I do agree there! I just don’t file forums under “social media” in the sense most people bemoan the concept.