7 ms·

I think it's poorly named. It's not a new major version of the web. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization

by cam0 5y ago

I think it's poorly named. It's not a new major version of the web. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization vs. centralization even a single bit. People will continue to mindlessly use WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Coinbase because decentralization is not a concern for _most_ users. Most users of these apps just want to socialize with friends and family, show off / humble brag / argue, and gamble.

timdaub 5y ago
Yeah, I also think it's poorly named. It's semantically speaking not a major upgrade. But additionally, I'd prefer web 2.1 over web 3.0 first...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dreyfan 5y ago
I’m so glad the entire decentralized community has rallied around the limitless power and innovation of NFTs.
- officialchicken 5y ago
  Please make an NFT of your comment for sale on opensea... I suggest "Bored hackernews comment club"
  - rchaud 5y ago
    Christie's and Sotheby's will be on red alert when this drops.
- poetaster 5y ago
  I'd buy an officialchicken fungible whatyamathingy!
acdha 5y ago
> Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization vs. centralization even a single bit. People will continue to mindlessly use WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Coinbase because decentralization is not a concern for _most_ users. I think you're doing a real disservice by characterizing this as “mindless”. For most people, decentralization is an anti-feature — it adds cost, risk, and performance issues while usually making the UX worse. The web has become more centralized over time because that allows people to build more compelling services, and much as that is disappointing from the perspective of the dreams many of us had in the 90s it's hard to argue that, say, a primary driver of the re-centralization of email wasn't the difficulty of controlling spam in a decentralized system. This intersects well with the blockchain advocacy: this post mentions a lot of terms which the VCs like to hear but there's a conspicuous absence of anything which normal users care about. There can be an argument for robustness in the case of an outage for a shared service but that's very far from a given and could only be measured by comparing specific examples since no two systems have the same failure mode.
Nevermark 5y ago
When it comes to tech, you can't judge what's important by people who use tech but don't spend three seconds in a day working on its possibilities. Surprisingly few regular people thought they wanted a PC before the World Wide Web. They still don't care about the technical details. Web 3.0 is obviously an aspirational name for what is still mostly a vision at this point. But developers need their moitivators. :)
- aty268 5y ago
  The difference here though is that web 3 really is just 'technical details' to most people. PC's had potential, they were getting cheaper, faster, and more software was being written for them every day. People could play video games, and show off to their friends. Web 3 has none of that, it's all just technical details that 90% of the population doesn't care about one bit.
  - Wazako 5y ago
    Web3 is money! The web2.0 it is impossible to make transactions between people, sites, and others. It's easier to put an ad than to ask the visitor for money. Imagine the possibility of creating feedback with automatic micro-payments!
    - warkdarrior 5y ago
      That may not be the selling point you think it is, since most people are not creators looking to monetize their content. Your statement then sounds like: "Envision web3: your opportunity to pay to visit any website!"
      - Nevermark 5y ago
        Most people are sick of ads and would happily pay 1/10 a cent to read a quality article, especially if the process was frictionless. And most creators would love to keep their content open for everyone, but not have icky ads cluttering up their content. I think you are underestimating how much micropayments will iron out a lot of problems for a lot of people. Host your own scrapbook page (er, Facebook) for penny's without ads, tracking, manipulative promotion of content... People lose sight of the fact that Facebooks massive server farms are not really there to serve little posts, but to track and make predictions about people. Those are just two ways Another is people learning to support many causes they believe in with very small regular donations. I would voluntarily pay 1/10 cent for every wikipedia page I looked at, or 10 cents a week. Doesn't seem like much but that's $5.20 a year painlessly given. Enough people do that and they could stop their annual funding drive. They would also have just got an even clearer incentive to up the quality and usefulness of what they do. Greater efforts resulting in greater donations directly.
amznthrwaway 5y ago
“Mindlessly” connect with their friends, family, and people who share their interests.
poetaster 5y ago
I like to chat with other devs as we work out problems on community code bases. Web 1 would suffice since much talk is still in irc. But we would miss stuff like git/obs...

by cam0 5y ago

timdaub 5y ago

Yeah, I also think it's poorly named. It's semantically speaking not a major upgrade. But additionally, I'd prefer web 2.1 over web 3.0 first...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dreyfan 5y ago

I’m so glad the entire decentralized community has rallied around the limitless power and innovation of NFTs.

officialchicken 5y ago
Please make an NFT of your comment for sale on opensea... I suggest "Bored hackernews comment club"
- rchaud 5y ago
  Christie's and Sotheby's will be on red alert when this drops.
poetaster 5y ago
I'd buy an officialchicken fungible whatyamathingy!

acdha 5y ago

> Forget the fact that the vast majority of the web's users don't care about decentralization vs. centralization even a single bit. People will continue to mindlessly use WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and Coinbase because decentralization is not a concern for _most_ users. I think you're doing a real disservice by characterizing this as “mindless”. For most people, decentralization is an anti-feature — it adds cost, risk, and performance issues while usually making the UX worse. The web has become more centralized over time because that allows people to build more compelling services, and much as that is disappointing from the perspective of the dreams many of us had in the 90s it's hard to argue that, say, a primary driver of the re-centralization of email wasn't the difficulty of controlling spam in a decentralized system. This intersects well with the blockchain advocacy: this post mentions a lot of terms which the VCs like to hear but there's a conspicuous absence of anything which normal users care about. There can be an argument for robustness in the case of an outage for a shared service but that's very far from a given and could only be measured by comparing specific examples since no two systems have the same failure mode.

Nevermark 5y ago

When it comes to tech, you can't judge what's important by people who use tech but don't spend three seconds in a day working on its possibilities. Surprisingly few regular people thought they wanted a PC before the World Wide Web. They still don't care about the technical details. Web 3.0 is obviously an aspirational name for what is still mostly a vision at this point. But developers need their moitivators. :)

aty268 5y ago
The difference here though is that web 3 really is just 'technical details' to most people. PC's had potential, they were getting cheaper, faster, and more software was being written for them every day. People could play video games, and show off to their friends. Web 3 has none of that, it's all just technical details that 90% of the population doesn't care about one bit.
- Wazako 5y ago
  Web3 is money! The web2.0 it is impossible to make transactions between people, sites, and others. It's easier to put an ad than to ask the visitor for money. Imagine the possibility of creating feedback with automatic micro-payments!
  - warkdarrior 5y ago
    That may not be the selling point you think it is, since most people are not creators looking to monetize their content. Your statement then sounds like: "Envision web3: your opportunity to pay to visit any website!"
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      Most people are sick of ads and would happily pay 1/10 a cent to read a quality article, especially if the process was frictionless. And most creators would love to keep their content open for everyone, but not have icky ads cluttering up their content. I think you are underestimating how much micropayments will iron out a lot of problems for a lot of people. Host your own scrapbook page (er, Facebook) for penny's without ads, tracking, manipulative promotion of content... People lose sight of the fact that Facebooks massive server farms are not really there to serve little posts, but to track and make predictions about people. Those are just two ways Another is people learning to support many causes they believe in with very small regular donations. I would voluntarily pay 1/10 cent for every wikipedia page I looked at, or 10 cents a week. Doesn't seem like much but that's $5.20 a year painlessly given. Enough people do that and they could stop their annual funding drive. They would also have just got an even clearer incentive to up the quality and usefulness of what they do. Greater efforts resulting in greater donations directly.

amznthrwaway 5y ago

“Mindlessly” connect with their friends, family, and people who share their interests.

poetaster 5y ago

I like to chat with other devs as we work out problems on community code bases. Web 1 would suffice since much talk is still in irc. But we would miss stuff like git/obs...