5 ms·

I really hope that the hype around web3 from techies and developers translates into it becoming a reincarnation of the "old web". AKA I don't see the general p

I really hope that the hype around web3 from techies and developers translates into it becoming a reincarnation of the "old web". AKA I don't see the general public moving away from centralized web2, but I do think it would be nice if developers created a decentralized alternative to Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, etc. which being made by individuals and mostly comprised of other developers, is very similar to old-school message boards. I don't think this decentralized platform will necessarily involve blockchain, just peer-to-peer interactions. The "web3 movement" could simply be getting more people to join a decentralized network like the Fediverse, and improving said network, so it becomes a common peer-to-peer developer version of Twitter, Youtube, etc. Blockchain makes it easy to pay people for being part of the network, but you could do the exact same thing with stablecoins or Stripe payments. Right now most techies and developers use YouTube and Reddit and Twitter even though they publicly loath and complain about these platforms (ironically on the platforms themselves). Because it's impossible for a small group to create anything remotely competing with a large centralized platform. But a decentralized platform, just maybe, could attract enough people and produce enough content to not be obscure. Ultimately, I think most of the interest in web3 comes from nostalgia. Old-school developers look at the rise of "Web 1.0" (the original Internet) and "Web 2.0" (Google, Facebook, YouTube). They remember everything being so new and exciting, and recognize how much opportunity they missed. Well, in the past few years the internet hasn't "really" changed much, supposedly it's been much more boring. People want more novelty and excitement and opportunity, and they think and hope it's going to happen again in something they will call "web3".

whywhywhywhy 5y ago
>AKA I don't see the general public moving away from centralized web2 I do, once the next major social network launches with crypto at it's core and the early adopters get an airdrop it's pretty much over for web2 social media. A whole generation will consider it antiquated to "do work for free" posting on the old networks when the next generation rewards them.
- diveanon 5y ago
  Reddit and FB are racing for this, and I know a half dozen other well funded startups working towards it too. Anyone who isn’t looking in this direction is going to get left behind over the next few years.
  - kranke155 5y ago
    Years? It will all happen in the next 24 months IMO. If you haven’t started yet you’re already running late!
Tenoke 5y ago
I am skeptical of this. Decentralization isn't cheap in the case of something like YouTube and doesn't provide enough benefits for the majority in the case of Twitter. Mastodon already exists but doesn't seem to have any chance of really rivaling Twitter.
- jsemrau 5y ago
  I had installed a Mastodon node during my research for finclout. I stopped after the realization that I don't want to use an inferior of an already existing product. Who in their right mind would? Btw, I have the same problem with the first iteration of DESO/Bitclout. New social networks should bring something that the existing ones don't have and for the end-user decentralization doesn't matter.
Traubenfuchs 5y ago
From the average end-user perspective, everything that can be achieved with so called "web3" technology can be achieved by 10, probably 20 or even more years old technology already. This is nothing but snakeoil trash dreamed up by people that are purely interested in get rich quick schemes. This has nothing to do with the spirit of the "old web".
clpm4j 5y ago
Agreed on most of this... but I guess I fall into the techie developer category, and a decent portion of my social group as well, and anecdotally none of us loath or even ever complain about Twitter and Youtube. I like the decentralized social networks in theory, but in the vast majority of instances I see the centralized aspect as a minor annoyance at worst - very far from being a real, painful problem to be solved. *note that OP isn't saying a decentralized version would become more popular: "But a decentralized platform, just maybe, could attract enough people and produce enough content to not be obscure."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Blockchain makes it easy to pay people for being part of the network Pay people for being part of the network? Where is this money coming from? Blockchain solutions are more expensive to maintain than centralized solutions. It’s going to cost a lot of money to put all of the photos and other data of a social network into a blockchain and keep it maintained. Certainly far more than it costs hyper-optimized centralized providers like Facebook and Twitter. There might be a few people out there interested in paying substantially to be part of a decentralized blockchain-based social platform, but it’s certainly a far, far smaller number than the people who are happy to use Twitter or Facebook for free.
- outside1234 5y ago
  It is folks using the network that are paying folks providing the network. Take storage, for example, this is folks paying to rent space (perhaps to do backups) from folks that have excess space.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Most people already pay folks to provide the network, their ISP. It's a hard sell to ask users to pay a second set of people.
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  wrt blockchain I was actually thinking of peers getting payed with cryptocurrency for participating in the p2p network and storing/providing non-blockchain assets. I assume it's easier to calculate and submit micropayments with a cryptocurrency than to connect with a real bank and do them with real money. Plus peers can trust that they get the correct payment for the amount they contribute to the p2p network, especially if the payment is via a smart contract. The one big advantage of blockchain I know of, is that a group of people can negotiate some sort of payment (e.g. I do X work I get Y coins), and once they agree, nobody can break the negotiation. So assuming everyone understands what they're doing, they will get automatically payed and nobody will run off with all the money (of course if people don't understand what they're doing, they can get scammed like the many many crypto scams we've seen so far).
shiohime 5y ago
I think that it'll be hard to create something in web3 that topples the existing centralized communication platforms, but think that it is possible to compete in technologies arising native to the web3 space. In other words, I think that it is possible that FB doesn't completely dominate the metaverse space to the same degree that they have in web2, if there are enough independent projects that have their own unique quirks and communities. It's ultimately up to the builders in my mind to prevent web3 from being a repeat of the centralization that characterizes web2.
jsemrau 5y ago
> Reddit and Twitter even though they publicly loath and complain about these platforms I guess the old adage that either people complain or don't use the software still holds true.
nathias 5y ago
I think a good example is odysee as alternative to youtube. It is powered by a blockchain it uses some tokens but the user only ever sees the good parts.
meheleventyone 5y ago
Honestly I think web3 is pretty doomed to discover why centralisation wins. In particular you can see this with the popularity of various blockchains. You immediately gain value by building on a chain with popularity. People gravitate and that increases the popularity and suddenly they’ve centralised around one piece of technology. Sure it’s decentralised in operation but that’s not the only axis. Similarly we’re seeing lots of platform power develop already including instances of disregarding the blockchain as a source of truth. The one part I grudgingly do like with NFTs is it gives people ownership of data that escapes platforms. NFTs are imperfect at this as they lack privacy, are ruinously expensive and complex to untangle from the entities that created them. Also all the usecases so far are more about speculation than defeating platforms. The non-blockchain alternatives like Pods and so on seem more compelling to me. But yeah to me we’ll see more decentralisation naturally when users are in charge of their own data. I also think this is going to only really take off when we solve digital identity and on boarding that isn’t horrendously technical.
- kranke155 5y ago
  NFTs are only expensive on ETH. Other chains like Tezos or Solana they can be cheaper than a latte.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    A latte sounds quite expensive in computational terms. I was definitely unclear but I was thinking about the transaction costs which I understand are much cheaper on PoS chains but still quite a bit higher than the real computational cost. The other side of it is how massively convoluted the pricing is.
    - kranke155 5y ago
      I don’t know about computational costs but in Tezos the transaction cost is something like 0.50$ atm. NFTs are definitely in a proof of concept stage, but I 100% expect them to improve dramatically in the next 12-24 months. People are working on solutions for virtually every problem that’s been thought of - fakes, rights managements etc. And they have already gained widespread adoption in the art world. As far as art goes NFTs are now fully adopted. NFTs are the first blockchain win. I expect gaming to be next.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Most of the web3 advocates are too young to have experienced Eternal September, and so they don't realize that not only are their ponzi scheme dreams foolish, but that even if they could get it off the ground, it'd be a ridiculous cesspool that nobody would want to use. There's a reason that people go to reddit and not Usenet to post their memes.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

>AKA I don't see the general public moving away from centralized web2 I do, once the next major social network launches with crypto at it's core and the early adopters get an airdrop it's pretty much over for web2 social media. A whole generation will consider it antiquated to "do work for free" posting on the old networks when the next generation rewards them.

diveanon 5y ago
Reddit and FB are racing for this, and I know a half dozen other well funded startups working towards it too. Anyone who isn’t looking in this direction is going to get left behind over the next few years.
- kranke155 5y ago
  Years? It will all happen in the next 24 months IMO. If you haven’t started yet you’re already running late!

Tenoke 5y ago

I am skeptical of this. Decentralization isn't cheap in the case of something like YouTube and doesn't provide enough benefits for the majority in the case of Twitter. Mastodon already exists but doesn't seem to have any chance of really rivaling Twitter.

jsemrau 5y ago
I had installed a Mastodon node during my research for finclout. I stopped after the realization that I don't want to use an inferior of an already existing product. Who in their right mind would? Btw, I have the same problem with the first iteration of DESO/Bitclout. New social networks should bring something that the existing ones don't have and for the end-user decentralization doesn't matter.

Traubenfuchs 5y ago

From the average end-user perspective, everything that can be achieved with so called "web3" technology can be achieved by 10, probably 20 or even more years old technology already. This is nothing but snakeoil trash dreamed up by people that are purely interested in get rich quick schemes. This has nothing to do with the spirit of the "old web".

clpm4j 5y ago

Agreed on most of this... but I guess I fall into the techie developer category, and a decent portion of my social group as well, and anecdotally none of us loath or even ever complain about Twitter and Youtube. I like the decentralized social networks in theory, but in the vast majority of instances I see the centralized aspect as a minor annoyance at worst - very far from being a real, painful problem to be solved. *note that OP isn't saying a decentralized version would become more popular: "But a decentralized platform, just maybe, could attract enough people and produce enough content to not be obscure."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> Blockchain makes it easy to pay people for being part of the network Pay people for being part of the network? Where is this money coming from? Blockchain solutions are more expensive to maintain than centralized solutions. It’s going to cost a lot of money to put all of the photos and other data of a social network into a blockchain and keep it maintained. Certainly far more than it costs hyper-optimized centralized providers like Facebook and Twitter. There might be a few people out there interested in paying substantially to be part of a decentralized blockchain-based social platform, but it’s certainly a far, far smaller number than the people who are happy to use Twitter or Facebook for free.

outside1234 5y ago
It is folks using the network that are paying folks providing the network. Take storage, for example, this is folks paying to rent space (perhaps to do backups) from folks that have excess space.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Most people already pay folks to provide the network, their ISP. It's a hard sell to ask users to pay a second set of people.
armchairhacker 5y ago
wrt blockchain I was actually thinking of peers getting payed with cryptocurrency for participating in the p2p network and storing/providing non-blockchain assets. I assume it's easier to calculate and submit micropayments with a cryptocurrency than to connect with a real bank and do them with real money. Plus peers can trust that they get the correct payment for the amount they contribute to the p2p network, especially if the payment is via a smart contract. The one big advantage of blockchain I know of, is that a group of people can negotiate some sort of payment (e.g. I do X work I get Y coins), and once they agree, nobody can break the negotiation. So assuming everyone understands what they're doing, they will get automatically payed and nobody will run off with all the money (of course if people don't understand what they're doing, they can get scammed like the many many crypto scams we've seen so far).

shiohime 5y ago

I think that it'll be hard to create something in web3 that topples the existing centralized communication platforms, but think that it is possible to compete in technologies arising native to the web3 space. In other words, I think that it is possible that FB doesn't completely dominate the metaverse space to the same degree that they have in web2, if there are enough independent projects that have their own unique quirks and communities. It's ultimately up to the builders in my mind to prevent web3 from being a repeat of the centralization that characterizes web2.

jsemrau 5y ago

> Reddit and Twitter even though they publicly loath and complain about these platforms I guess the old adage that either people complain or don't use the software still holds true.

nathias 5y ago

I think a good example is odysee as alternative to youtube. It is powered by a blockchain it uses some tokens but the user only ever sees the good parts.

meheleventyone 5y ago

Honestly I think web3 is pretty doomed to discover why centralisation wins. In particular you can see this with the popularity of various blockchains. You immediately gain value by building on a chain with popularity. People gravitate and that increases the popularity and suddenly they’ve centralised around one piece of technology. Sure it’s decentralised in operation but that’s not the only axis. Similarly we’re seeing lots of platform power develop already including instances of disregarding the blockchain as a source of truth. The one part I grudgingly do like with NFTs is it gives people ownership of data that escapes platforms. NFTs are imperfect at this as they lack privacy, are ruinously expensive and complex to untangle from the entities that created them. Also all the usecases so far are more about speculation than defeating platforms. The non-blockchain alternatives like Pods and so on seem more compelling to me. But yeah to me we’ll see more decentralisation naturally when users are in charge of their own data. I also think this is going to only really take off when we solve digital identity and on boarding that isn’t horrendously technical.

kranke155 5y ago
NFTs are only expensive on ETH. Other chains like Tezos or Solana they can be cheaper than a latte.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  A latte sounds quite expensive in computational terms. I was definitely unclear but I was thinking about the transaction costs which I understand are much cheaper on PoS chains but still quite a bit higher than the real computational cost. The other side of it is how massively convoluted the pricing is.
  - kranke155 5y ago
    I don’t know about computational costs but in Tezos the transaction cost is something like 0.50$ atm. NFTs are definitely in a proof of concept stage, but I 100% expect them to improve dramatically in the next 12-24 months. People are working on solutions for virtually every problem that’s been thought of - fakes, rights managements etc. And they have already gained widespread adoption in the art world. As far as art goes NFTs are now fully adopted. NFTs are the first blockchain win. I expect gaming to be next.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Most of the web3 advocates are too young to have experienced Eternal September, and so they don't realize that not only are their ponzi scheme dreams foolish, but that even if they could get it off the ground, it'd be a ridiculous cesspool that nobody would want to use. There's a reason that people go to reddit and not Usenet to post their memes.