3 ms·

Web3 feels like the next grift after we caught on to ICO's. From the article: > The problem here is the profit motive: people who are working on web3 generall

Web3 feels like the next grift after we caught on to ICO's. From the article: > The problem here is the profit motive: people who are working on web3 generally want to get paid for it, but it's fundamentally harder to extract rent from truly decentralized systems than it is from centralized ones. Because of that, people end up building systems that are centralized at their core, with some aesthetics of decentralization smeared on top, and call it web3. I remain curious that there are practical applications for blockchain outside digital gold style securities. But web3 feels like a land grab for the mindshare of the future. Trading off the philosophies that got us here, while subverting them with the very things the web fought against (centralisation, pay-to-play and so on). A big red flag is the level of complexity of web3 compared to say HTTP. I rarely see practitioners of web3 talking with clarity, instead hand waving and double-speak is far more common. Yes, sometimes the most exciting things are emergent, but it's been over a decade of the blockchain field of dreams and we're still talking in hypotheticals are what it will be good for. Gall's law seems more prescient than ever: > A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system. At the network layer tcp/ip/http are relatively simple compared to blockchain. At the application layer a web server/cloud is still simpler than a dApp. At the user layer a credit/debit card is still simpler than paying with crypto. To say nothing of the ecological impacts. You may think web3 is the future, but we cannot ignore the fact that http is greener. Yes, I know proof of stake will make crypto green but I'm not convinced it's possible [0]. [0] https://yanmaani.github.io/proof-of-stake-is-a-scam-and-the-people-promoting-it-are-scammers/ https://yanmaani.github.io/proof-of-stake-is-a-scam-and-the-...

post_below 5y ago
The ecological problem is, in my opinion, what should lead the conversation. Climate change being what it is, we shouldn't even be considering technologies with carbon footprints as large as existing blockchains. In theory that problem is solvable, but in the present, it should be a deal breaker
- xondono 5y ago
  > The ecological problem is, in my opinion, what should lead the conversation. I don’t because it’s a very weak argument. You could conceivably run all crypto on renewables and excess energy. The fact that the main purpose of the network seems to be running ponzi schemes, even in poor countries, is much more damning IMO.
- abaga129 5y ago
  The carbon footprint you refer to applies only to proof-of-work blockchains. Unfortunately 3 of the largest systems use this (bitcoin, Ethereum, and doge) but an alternative has already been created called proof-of-stake. Nearly every new crypto uses proof-of-stake and Ethereum plans to switch to it. The market seems to approve of this as well as some of the big gainers in market cap use this system.
qudat 5y ago
> Yes, sometimes the most exciting things are emergent, but it's been over a decade of the blockchain field of dreams and we're still talking in hypotheticals are what it will be good for. There’s a reason our current financial infrastructure is still being run on cobol: if it only took 10 years to build it would have been updated already. Financial tech takes a very long time and with a revolutionary idea such a cryptocurrency, I’m sure it will take even longer. Things take time, 10 years is not a long time, however I agree with the overall sentiment about web3 and crypto in general in this thread. Cryptocurrency is less a currency and more another financial investment vehicle for people that are tech savvy enough to get into the game. Put in another way: it’s primarily being used to make money, not trade it for goods/services. Maybe one day it will be used truly as a currency, but txn fees are too high and “HODL”ing makes the person money so they’d rather not trade it.
- ojkelly 5y ago
  I agree, and that's very much why I remain interested to see what comes of it. If it's going to move forward it has to shake the sleazy image with all the scams, pump and dumps, Ponzi-schemes and market manipulation.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Financial tech takes a very long time and with a revolutionary idea such a cryptocurrency, I’m sure it will take even longer. "cryptocurrencies are revolutionary" is a statement that needs proof, not blind belief.

post_below 5y ago

The ecological problem is, in my opinion, what should lead the conversation. Climate change being what it is, we shouldn't even be considering technologies with carbon footprints as large as existing blockchains. In theory that problem is solvable, but in the present, it should be a deal breaker

xondono 5y ago
> The ecological problem is, in my opinion, what should lead the conversation. I don’t because it’s a very weak argument. You could conceivably run all crypto on renewables and excess energy. The fact that the main purpose of the network seems to be running ponzi schemes, even in poor countries, is much more damning IMO.
abaga129 5y ago
The carbon footprint you refer to applies only to proof-of-work blockchains. Unfortunately 3 of the largest systems use this (bitcoin, Ethereum, and doge) but an alternative has already been created called proof-of-stake. Nearly every new crypto uses proof-of-stake and Ethereum plans to switch to it. The market seems to approve of this as well as some of the big gainers in market cap use this system.

qudat 5y ago

> Yes, sometimes the most exciting things are emergent, but it's been over a decade of the blockchain field of dreams and we're still talking in hypotheticals are what it will be good for. There’s a reason our current financial infrastructure is still being run on cobol: if it only took 10 years to build it would have been updated already. Financial tech takes a very long time and with a revolutionary idea such a cryptocurrency, I’m sure it will take even longer. Things take time, 10 years is not a long time, however I agree with the overall sentiment about web3 and crypto in general in this thread. Cryptocurrency is less a currency and more another financial investment vehicle for people that are tech savvy enough to get into the game. Put in another way: it’s primarily being used to make money, not trade it for goods/services. Maybe one day it will be used truly as a currency, but txn fees are too high and “HODL”ing makes the person money so they’d rather not trade it.

ojkelly 5y ago
I agree, and that's very much why I remain interested to see what comes of it. If it's going to move forward it has to shake the sleazy image with all the scams, pump and dumps, Ponzi-schemes and market manipulation.
dmitriid 5y ago
> Financial tech takes a very long time and with a revolutionary idea such a cryptocurrency, I’m sure it will take even longer. "cryptocurrencies are revolutionary" is a statement that needs proof, not blind belief.