5 ms·

The decision to call all of this "web 3.0" without actually consulting any developers (that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies) was such a mistake. No - I don't

The decision to call all of this "web 3.0" without actually consulting any developers (that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies) was such a mistake. No - I don't want to write inherently buggy smart contracts for your scam. If I wanted to do that, I would have gone into fintech awhile ago.

paulgb 5y ago
I agree that it's a shame, but looking back at “web 2.0”, wasn't it kind of the same? I'm absolutely guilty about being excited about it at the time, but in retrospect, a bunch of rounded corners and incremental inclusion of Ajax didn't really warrant a SemVer major version update either. Edit: actually, maybe the justification of the SemVer bump is that people stopped caring about IE5 support :)
- pbourke 5y ago
  Web 2.0 was a hokey name, but at least it was a new approach to building web apps, built on the techniques and technology that preceded it. Web 3 is ... not that.
  - fastball 5y ago
    How is web3 not a new approach to building web apps? You might disagree with the approach, but using blockchain as the backend for an app is very different from previous iterations of the web.
    - pbourke 5y ago
      There have been plenty of new backend approaches since the term Web 2.0 was minted. The important change was a shifting from one request per view to multiple requests that comprise a view: it was the client/server interaction patterns that were important. The fact that you build your “web 3” application using Web 2.0 techniques (SPAs, etc) tells me that web 3 is not a thing. It’s another type of backend, and the web is designed to have those appear in perpetuity.
      - fastball 5y ago
        So if you specifically craft a definition to exclude web3 from being a new paradigm for the web, it (surprisingly) is not a new paradigm for the web. Interesting and constructive.
fastball 5y ago
Is there some sort of developer cabal that I'm not aware of that makes naming decisions in the software space? Where exactly do you want developers to be "consulted" for this?
carlosdp 5y ago
That's not how words work. You propose a term, and either it catches on or it doesn't, and this one has caught on. I don't know what committee of developers "that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies" you imagine exists that has some authority on what marketing terms you can use on twitter, or why a group explicitly disinterested in a topic should be consulted in the creation of those terms...
- acdha 5y ago
  It’s not so much proposing a word rather than trying to take over a popular one in an effort to shed the negative reputation which years of failure had given your first one. It’s not surprising that people who work on the web don’t want their hard work being coopted to bail the cryptocurrency guys out of a mess they talked themselves into.
  - carlosdp 5y ago
    This literally sounds like the whole "your gay marriage is ruining my marriage, just by existing" argument, but for the web. Like, what are we talking about here?
    - acdha 5y ago
      Something called “web” should use web technologies and culture? This feels like if the Git developers had tried to call it Web 3 — irrespective of the merits of the tool, it’s weird to present your business as the successor to a community you’re not part of.
      - carlosdp 5y ago
        How are we not part of the web community? Literally everything in web3 is built on the web using web technology and web primitives. Hell, our standards processes are even inspired by W3C/RFC process. I also challenge the notion web3 is a "sucessor" to the web. I wouldn't call web 2.0 (the social web) a "successor", it didn't replace anything. It's just a descriptor for a different user/product relationship. Web 1 -> read only Web 2 -> read/write (comments, primarily user-generated content) Web 3 -> read/write/own (users "own" the content)
neilparikh 5y ago
When I first heard Web 3, I thought the semantic web had a resurgence (the semantic web was called Web 3). Unfortunately not though.
ATsch 5y ago
I don't think it was a mistake at all, it's just a simple marketing tactic. You just add a version number to a thing and then everyone who was part of the old thing will feel like they're missing out. Most of cryptocurrency marketing works that way, throwing jargon at you until you feel stupid for not understanding why it is supposedly so revolutionary. And once the thousands of marks who have already been roped into the scheme discover your comment, they'll be all over it to protect their investment and you'll feel very alone.
baby 5y ago
> The decision to call all of this "web 3.0" without actually consulting any developers (that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies) was such a mistake. Not sure I understand your point. What developers do you need to consult? Some random developers coined that term, as much as some random developers coined the web 2.0 terms. It's up to people to use it or not.
eadmund 5y ago
First they took the term 'crypto,' which had always referred to cryptography, and now they have taken the term 'web.' I really hope that next year the hype is not about how cryptocurrency can do something or other for people, and somehow they also take the term 'human.' I kid, I kid … mostly.

paulgb 5y ago

I agree that it's a shame, but looking back at “web 2.0”, wasn't it kind of the same? I'm absolutely guilty about being excited about it at the time, but in retrospect, a bunch of rounded corners and incremental inclusion of Ajax didn't really warrant a SemVer major version update either. Edit: actually, maybe the justification of the SemVer bump is that people stopped caring about IE5 support :)

pbourke 5y ago
Web 2.0 was a hokey name, but at least it was a new approach to building web apps, built on the techniques and technology that preceded it. Web 3 is ... not that.
- fastball 5y ago
  How is web3 not a new approach to building web apps? You might disagree with the approach, but using blockchain as the backend for an app is very different from previous iterations of the web.
  - pbourke 5y ago
    There have been plenty of new backend approaches since the term Web 2.0 was minted. The important change was a shifting from one request per view to multiple requests that comprise a view: it was the client/server interaction patterns that were important. The fact that you build your “web 3” application using Web 2.0 techniques (SPAs, etc) tells me that web 3 is not a thing. It’s another type of backend, and the web is designed to have those appear in perpetuity.
    - fastball 5y ago
      So if you specifically craft a definition to exclude web3 from being a new paradigm for the web, it (surprisingly) is not a new paradigm for the web. Interesting and constructive.

fastball 5y ago

Is there some sort of developer cabal that I'm not aware of that makes naming decisions in the software space? Where exactly do you want developers to be "consulted" for this?

carlosdp 5y ago

That's not how words work. You propose a term, and either it catches on or it doesn't, and this one has caught on. I don't know what committee of developers "that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies" you imagine exists that has some authority on what marketing terms you can use on twitter, or why a group explicitly disinterested in a topic should be consulted in the creation of those terms...

acdha 5y ago
It’s not so much proposing a word rather than trying to take over a popular one in an effort to shed the negative reputation which years of failure had given your first one. It’s not surprising that people who work on the web don’t want their hard work being coopted to bail the cryptocurrency guys out of a mess they talked themselves into.
- carlosdp 5y ago
  This literally sounds like the whole "your gay marriage is ruining my marriage, just by existing" argument, but for the web. Like, what are we talking about here?
  - acdha 5y ago
    Something called “web” should use web technologies and culture? This feels like if the Git developers had tried to call it Web 3 — irrespective of the merits of the tool, it’s weird to present your business as the successor to a community you’re not part of.
    - carlosdp 5y ago
      How are we not part of the web community? Literally everything in web3 is built on the web using web technology and web primitives. Hell, our standards processes are even inspired by W3C/RFC process. I also challenge the notion web3 is a "sucessor" to the web. I wouldn't call web 2.0 (the social web) a "successor", it didn't replace anything. It's just a descriptor for a different user/product relationship. Web 1 -> read only Web 2 -> read/write (comments, primarily user-generated content) Web 3 -> read/write/own (users "own" the content)

neilparikh 5y ago

When I first heard Web 3, I thought the semantic web had a resurgence (the semantic web was called Web 3). Unfortunately not though.

ATsch 5y ago

I don't think it was a mistake at all, it's just a simple marketing tactic. You just add a version number to a thing and then everyone who was part of the old thing will feel like they're missing out. Most of cryptocurrency marketing works that way, throwing jargon at you until you feel stupid for not understanding why it is supposedly so revolutionary. And once the thousands of marks who have already been roped into the scheme discover your comment, they'll be all over it to protect their investment and you'll feel very alone.

baby 5y ago

> The decision to call all of this "web 3.0" without actually consulting any developers (that don't own/trade cryptocurrencies) was such a mistake. Not sure I understand your point. What developers do you need to consult? Some random developers coined that term, as much as some random developers coined the web 2.0 terms. It's up to people to use it or not.

eadmund 5y ago

First they took the term 'crypto,' which had always referred to cryptography, and now they have taken the term 'web.' I really hope that next year the hype is not about how cryptocurrency can do something or other for people, and somehow they also take the term 'human.' I kid, I kid … mostly.