3 ms·
Not that I give any of these two any chance of succeeding, but the fediverse seems to me like it has much higher chances of short term success than Web 3.0. Sm
by r3bl 8y ago
Not that I give any of these two any chance of succeeding, but the fediverse seems to me like it has much higher chances of short term success than Web 3.0.
Small (and a pretty ignorant) comparison:
Fediverse: Fair amount of clients, some users, utilizes existing technologies and creates decentralized versions of already existing paradigms based on the W3C recommendations.
Web 3.0: Uses blockchain, can't access it from your browser, has barely any users but apparently a lot of clients, inherits probably the worst aspect of .onion services (inability to just type in the URL).
However, looking purely at the financial level, Web 3.0 seems to be winning. It's where money is funneled through, because there's a small chance that it will offer something grandiose in return. Meanwhile, fediverse operates on pennies donated by the users to approachable sysadmins with some spare resources.
One of them can afford a summit in San Francisco (sponsored by a few foundations), and the second one will probably never have a summit anywhere.
- phiresky 8y ago> (inability to just type in the URL) You could still put all domains of an alternate domain system behind a X.web3.org that loads the whole system client side, and then connects to peers via WebRTC to load the domain X via webtorrents or ipfs or zeronet or whatever. That way it's (mostly) backwards compatible to normal websites and you can remove the "root domain" trust point later.
- xj9 8y agoi can neither confirm or deny the existence of clandestine fediverse summits.
- herbst 8y agoEther is in fact perfectly well integrated in the browser though metamask. It's a strange but interesting piece of technology.