3 ms·
While you’re entitled to your opinion, and I have no idea how many others share your views, I disagree. The common Web 1, 2, 3 definitions seem well defined an
by ssss11 5y ago
While you’re entitled to your opinion, and I have no idea how many others share your views, I disagree.
The common Web 1, 2, 3 definitions seem well defined and known enough for consensus.
Web3 though, I think is about empowering users, and if blockchain is a technology option that enables that then great. I’ve been following self sovereign identity since about 2014 and thought that would the tech but it doesn’t matter at the end of the day which tech gives people agency, control of their data, and the ability to have privacy.
The point about a mandatory web is moot if Web3 takes off with privacy by design.
- codingdave 5y ago> The common Web 1, 2, 3 definitions seem well defined and known enough for consensus. I don't think we have consensus on any of those terms. The fact that there are multiple discussions a day at this point trying to define those terms should suffice to prove that. But I don't think we need consensus, either. The Internet has existed for longer than the web. The web is diminishing as other platforms and devices come online. And none of that was either empowered or limited by terminology. Technology evolves. People can call it what they will. My complaint about 'web3' is not about consensus on terms - my complaint is that it is being pushed by groups trying to claim a common term for themselves that is unrelated to the tech they are pimping. They have not gained the wide acceptance that they feel they deserve, so they are trying to usurp a term that does have wide acceptance. I get it from a marketing perspective, but it just feels dishonest at best, and somewhat desperate.