7 ms·

The fact it's impossible to disconnect the profit motive from the technology stack should be incredibly concerning, and the article makes a good point as to why

The fact it's impossible to disconnect the profit motive from the technology stack should be incredibly concerning, and the article makes a good point as to why. My primary concern, right now, is that Web3 is inaccessible to the majority of people, because its very architecture makes a "free" version of it impossible.

jude- 5y ago
Yeah, how dare people try to make money without resorting to surveillance capitalism. What's the world coming to.
diveanon 5y ago
Using web3 for auth costs nothing, and users here have often stated an interest in an ad free pay-per-use web. Here it is, people are just confused because there is a strong incentive on this forum to trash anything cryptocurrency related. Web3 is by far the easiest way to provide auth to a web app right now, if you haven’t experimented with it I highly recommend giving it a try. The react library is a decent place to start.
- whymarrh 5y ago
  > Web3 is by far the easiest way to provide auth to a web app right now Easiest by what measure? As I understand it, few browsers (read: only one or two) have built in wallets and outside of that the UX for this auth isn’t great. It’s hard to see how this is better/easier to use than existing OIDC/"Sign In With X" solutions.
  - RileyJames 5y ago
    Click “Connect” and sign into MetaMask wallet. Agreed, it’s much the same as OIDC. Tho personally, beyond GitHub for dev related sites, I won’t use them. If anything it enables “websites” to be simpler, smaller. A UI atop a single function. Without the bloat. Without the “we must do enough to show value to get users to sign up”. I just auth, use it, and move on with my life. Sometimes there’s a fee per use. Sometimes that value is exchanged somewhere else in the transaction. But either way, I got what I needed and I’m done.
    - diveanon 5y ago
      Don't forget that it can also be revoked without any action required from the application itself. Web3 is everything we wanted out of auth for the last decade or so.
      - nwienert 5y ago
        Only if the web3 app itself is entirely decentralized, doesn't implement any moderation, and never votes to change the above. I suspect they will quickly need moderation, and therefore it wont matter if your identity is irrevocable as the platform itself could easily block it. I do see the value in being able to bring an identity around and store it in a blockchain, but... extreme fragmentation is a bummer.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        So we're just gonna forget OpenID exists?
      - whymarrh 5y ago
        And what does this revocation accomplish? The app still has your unique address. This revocation is simply "don't log me in next time." You still need to use the app to delete any data, if that's even possible (highly-dependent on the app). This is no different than going to your GitHub account (in the parent comment's example and revoking https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-account-and-data-secure/reviewing-your-authorized-integrations https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-accou...). I don't disagree that having a keypair on the client for authentication is a cool idea, but it's hardly specific to "Web3" (e.g. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/public-private_key_authentication/supporting_passkeys https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationserv...).
- wombatpm 5y ago
  The pay-per-use web has always been a pipedream because of theoverhead of microtransactions. A one time view of a page may be worth $0.25 , but nobody can make that work because of creditcard transaction fees - hence the move to mothly fees and subscriptions. I fail to see how crypto with its variable 'gas' charges are going to make that work or work better. The only ones who made it work were the phone company where they could bill you by the minute based on your activity - and we are right back to centralization.
  - crypot 5y ago
    Bitcoin fixes this. Read the whitepaper.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      It’s amazing that Bitcoin still isn’t Bitcoin yet.
    - zeruch 5y ago
      "Bitcoin fixes this. Read the whitepaper." If that's your basis, then I don't think you're inspired by anything other than pecuniary interest, which is the crux of the issue by the OP.
    - krallja 5y ago
      The current transaction fee is about $2.19. Nobody can use Bitcoins for microtransactions because the fees are worse than credit card networks, PayPal, etc.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      I can't take this comment seriously. It's pretty well-known that Bitcoin is likely the worst way to digitally send micropayments. The fees are way too high. Bitcoin does not scale. Yeah, the Lightning Network exists, but that doesn't really solve the problem for one-off microtransactions.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Nothing costs anything for auth. What's expensive is storage and meaningful actions. In terms of "easy way to provide auth" … for who? Certainly not end users. Also, the people who want a "pay per use" web are, shockingly, generally people for whom "pay per use" is financially feasible. That is not the majority of people.
- dcabrejas 5y ago
  Exactly. The author is just confused. Web3 doesn't require anyone to pay anything.
tuxman 5y ago
I've used IPFS[1] to store and host files completely separate from cryptocurrency. IPFS is a major backbone of Web3 tech, and is responsible for enabling much of the current NFT craze because IPFS is free. The same company that made and maintains IPFS also created Filecoin, and the fact that the two are completely separate projects to the point where I can and have used IPFS for free without having any knowledge of or owning any Filecoin speaks volumes. Judging from some view of the Web3[2] stack, I can create a decentralized application that exists entirely through p2p storage without ever actually having to incorporate a blockchain or cryptocurrency, and this can still be considered Web3 technology. [1] https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/faq/#what-is-ipfs https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/faq/#what-is-ipfs [2] https://web3-technology-stack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ https://web3-technology-stack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
fumplethumb 5y ago
This is an interesting comment because I disagree completely. Web3’s binding of economics and technology is _exactly_ what makes it compelling. Free versions of things are often impractical. Good things take time and effort. How many users host their own email servers or have their own mastodon instance for example? Most people prefer to pay (in fees or in ad attention) for premium versions of these services that are built/maintained by private companies in a closed/centralized manner. At its best, Web3’s marriage of economics and technology allows for a hybrid model where people pay for premium versions of these products built by people/companies in an open manner. The closed vs. open is key here. Without Web3 you can build something open/decentralized for free or something closed/centralized for profit. Web3 allows building services that are open/for profit. Imagine the power of capitalism harnessed by open projects. Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s what excites me about Web3.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Free versions of things are what has made current internet culture possible. And nothing is stopping anyone, today, from building open things, while making money.

jude- 5y ago

Yeah, how dare people try to make money without resorting to surveillance capitalism. What's the world coming to.

diveanon 5y ago

Using web3 for auth costs nothing, and users here have often stated an interest in an ad free pay-per-use web. Here it is, people are just confused because there is a strong incentive on this forum to trash anything cryptocurrency related. Web3 is by far the easiest way to provide auth to a web app right now, if you haven’t experimented with it I highly recommend giving it a try. The react library is a decent place to start.

whymarrh 5y ago
> Web3 is by far the easiest way to provide auth to a web app right now Easiest by what measure? As I understand it, few browsers (read: only one or two) have built in wallets and outside of that the UX for this auth isn’t great. It’s hard to see how this is better/easier to use than existing OIDC/"Sign In With X" solutions.
- RileyJames 5y ago
  Click “Connect” and sign into MetaMask wallet. Agreed, it’s much the same as OIDC. Tho personally, beyond GitHub for dev related sites, I won’t use them. If anything it enables “websites” to be simpler, smaller. A UI atop a single function. Without the bloat. Without the “we must do enough to show value to get users to sign up”. I just auth, use it, and move on with my life. Sometimes there’s a fee per use. Sometimes that value is exchanged somewhere else in the transaction. But either way, I got what I needed and I’m done.
  - diveanon 5y ago
    Don't forget that it can also be revoked without any action required from the application itself. Web3 is everything we wanted out of auth for the last decade or so.
    - nwienert 5y ago
      Only if the web3 app itself is entirely decentralized, doesn't implement any moderation, and never votes to change the above. I suspect they will quickly need moderation, and therefore it wont matter if your identity is irrevocable as the platform itself could easily block it. I do see the value in being able to bring an identity around and store it in a blockchain, but... extreme fragmentation is a bummer.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      So we're just gonna forget OpenID exists?
    - whymarrh 5y ago
      And what does this revocation accomplish? The app still has your unique address. This revocation is simply "don't log me in next time." You still need to use the app to delete any data, if that's even possible (highly-dependent on the app). This is no different than going to your GitHub account (in the parent comment's example and revoking https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-account-and-data-secure/reviewing-your-authorized-integrations https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-accou...). I don't disagree that having a keypair on the client for authentication is a cool idea, but it's hardly specific to "Web3" (e.g. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/public-private_key_authentication/supporting_passkeys https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationserv...).
wombatpm 5y ago
The pay-per-use web has always been a pipedream because of theoverhead of microtransactions. A one time view of a page may be worth $0.25 , but nobody can make that work because of creditcard transaction fees - hence the move to mothly fees and subscriptions. I fail to see how crypto with its variable 'gas' charges are going to make that work or work better. The only ones who made it work were the phone company where they could bill you by the minute based on your activity - and we are right back to centralization.
- crypot 5y ago
  Bitcoin fixes this. Read the whitepaper.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    It’s amazing that Bitcoin still isn’t Bitcoin yet.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    "Bitcoin fixes this. Read the whitepaper." If that's your basis, then I don't think you're inspired by anything other than pecuniary interest, which is the crux of the issue by the OP.
  - krallja 5y ago
    The current transaction fee is about $2.19. Nobody can use Bitcoins for microtransactions because the fees are worse than credit card networks, PayPal, etc.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I can't take this comment seriously. It's pretty well-known that Bitcoin is likely the worst way to digitally send micropayments. The fees are way too high. Bitcoin does not scale. Yeah, the Lightning Network exists, but that doesn't really solve the problem for one-off microtransactions.
etchalon 5y ago
Nothing costs anything for auth. What's expensive is storage and meaningful actions. In terms of "easy way to provide auth" … for who? Certainly not end users. Also, the people who want a "pay per use" web are, shockingly, generally people for whom "pay per use" is financially feasible. That is not the majority of people.
dcabrejas 5y ago
Exactly. The author is just confused. Web3 doesn't require anyone to pay anything.

tuxman 5y ago

I've used IPFS[1] to store and host files completely separate from cryptocurrency. IPFS is a major backbone of Web3 tech, and is responsible for enabling much of the current NFT craze because IPFS is free. The same company that made and maintains IPFS also created Filecoin, and the fact that the two are completely separate projects to the point where I can and have used IPFS for free without having any knowledge of or owning any Filecoin speaks volumes. Judging from some view of the Web3[2] stack, I can create a decentralized application that exists entirely through p2p storage without ever actually having to incorporate a blockchain or cryptocurrency, and this can still be considered Web3 technology. [1] https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/faq/#what-is-ipfs https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/faq/#what-is-ipfs [2] https://web3-technology-stack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ https://web3-technology-stack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

fumplethumb 5y ago

This is an interesting comment because I disagree completely. Web3’s binding of economics and technology is _exactly_ what makes it compelling. Free versions of things are often impractical. Good things take time and effort. How many users host their own email servers or have their own mastodon instance for example? Most people prefer to pay (in fees or in ad attention) for premium versions of these services that are built/maintained by private companies in a closed/centralized manner. At its best, Web3’s marriage of economics and technology allows for a hybrid model where people pay for premium versions of these products built by people/companies in an open manner. The closed vs. open is key here. Without Web3 you can build something open/decentralized for free or something closed/centralized for profit. Web3 allows building services that are open/for profit. Imagine the power of capitalism harnessed by open projects. Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s what excites me about Web3.

etchalon 5y ago
Free versions of things are what has made current internet culture possible. And nothing is stopping anyone, today, from building open things, while making money.