9 ms·
web0 manifesto
- AmazingTurtle 5y agoSaying that NFTs and blockchain were "right-libertarian" is just polemic. Why is HN offering a public space for /pol/? Please take your agitation elsewhere, guys.
- numtel 5y agoHow ridiculous that the main feature is to "sign" the document but it asks for name and email instead of a cryptographic signature
- encryptluks2 5y agoExactly... You'll know it is there when it is built. I've tried this approach before. Have an idea to build something you want but haven't built yet. You end up finding that it difficult to build and expensive. You try and fail at getting the money you need and so you market it and hope that you can get other people on board to build with same idea. People won't have the same idea until you can make it clear what that is and so the more information the better.
- birracerveza 5y agoSigned, Jeff (jeff@amazon.com)
- pictur 5y agoIt's always funny to me that these people can find so much support with this romance.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tanin 5y agoWeb0 should have meant offline-only Desktop apps that are built with web technology like Electron.
- md_ 5y agoI don’t mean to be stupid, but what’s the manifesto? All I get on this page is a form to sign the manifesto. The actual manifesto is…what?
- jasode 5y ago>All I get on this page is a form to sign the manifesto. The actual manifesto is…what? At the top of the page is a black box with white text that has the following pseudo-math propositions: web3 = decentralisation + blockchain + NFTs + metaverse web0 = web3 - blockchain - NFTs - metaverse So it's playing on the arithmetic of '3' in "web3" minus '1' of blockchain minus '1' of NFT minus '1' of metaverse -- so the final math equation equals 0 -- which is the '0' in "web0". And then the black text on white background then has: "In other words, web0 is web3 without all the corporate right-libertarian Silicon Valley bullshit." I don't think there's really any more to it than that.
- satyrnein 5y agoStill feels like it's missing a statement of some kind. Those are the definitions, fine. But it needs something like "We the undersigned pledge to [not buy NFTs / downvote Blockchain posts / promote alternative means of decentralization / etc]" Currently the signature is basically just a "like" on a funny tweet.
- addandsubtract 5y agoIf only there was a trust less way to sign something on behalf of a person, project, or organisation. /s Instead of hating "web3" for all the bad actors using it, why don't we embrace web3 for what it can be? I see so much potential for it to replace all the current social logins that everyone hates, all the awkward digital (PDF) contract signatures, and ad ridden blog spam that could be funded with digital microtransactions.
- birracerveza 5y agoThe manifesto is "crypto is bad and weird and scary to me". Yeah yeah, decentralization... How, exactly? You run your own server? Is that decentralization?
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
- anyaya 5y agoWhat the hell is this? Not sure what this manifesto is trying to achieve.
- anyaya 5y agoI don't see the point of this?
- hbbio 5y agoWhat is this current trend of being "anti" [insert your favorite hated component here], without even offering an alternative or a precise description of what is being proposed? I would have expected at least a one-pager summing up what is the proposal about: The topic of decentralization is obviously very interesting and I wanted to read something technical about an alternative to "web3". Until then...
- nickdothutton 5y agoAnother movement or group defined more or less only by what it is against rather than what it is for?
- sebow 5y ago> In other words, web0 is web3 without all the corporate right-libertarian Silicon Valley bullshit. Yikes.Since when decentralization has been something different than a right/libertarian position?If anything not having centralized power is specifically that. I see this train of thought from figures like Tim Pool (and even much "higher" intellectually speaking,not gonna name them), who seem to think free software and/or decentralization is a social and left-leaning issue and proposition.It's not, if you want to bring politics into discussion at least be accurate about it.Owning your own data,not being censored at will and having more control is a right/libertarian position, or at least not in anti-thesis with it.However people seem to think the internet is/can be used somehow as tool of revolutionaries against the state, that's not how it works(at least right now, where you don't have access to it w/o the government knowing about it). Maybe it's only referring to the disgusting SV corporate aspect in the economic sense from things like NFTs, but this is vastly overblown.Corporations are not the ones selling the most NFTs snake oil right now, people are.Corporations only want to facilitate this sh*t show, I don't have a problem with that as long as the network is not centralized by them.(which is not, but people kind of pretend the internet is decentralized which is rather funny)
- natn 5y agoReminds me of when it seemed like a reasonable thing to do to host a website on the world wide web from my home network. The web was always decentralised, but various motivations and reasonable tradeoffs caused it accumulate a lot of crap. Maybe the point is that Web3 isn't really different in this respect.
- legutierr 5y ago“Blockchain” is a class of technologies. I don’t think I would even call it a specific technology. It’s more akin to “packet switching” than it is akin to “Ethernet” or “TCP/IP”. I can understand some critics’ opposition to cryptocurrencies on public policy grounds (although I think most critics are too broad in their critique), or their opposition to NFTs based on the fact that many NFTs are bullshit don’t represent ownership of anything at all (although I think that will not always be the case). What I don’t understand—and where these critics loose credibility with me—is their rejection of the entire class of blockchain technologies. If you don’t want to use a blockchain to build your app, fine! Don’t do it! But if I want to build my app with a blockchain integration, or using a blockchain to store a portion of my data, what’s your problem with that? To me, it all sounds very similar to, “don’t build your app using Microsoft tech, only use open source” or “don’t use NoSQL for storage, use an RDBMS instead.” It’s like a new version of those ridiculous religious wars people would have over technology preferences, only now higher-stakes and even more passionate.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway1777 5y agoAgreed, the problem would be if we were forced to use blockchains, not if some people choose to use them. We aren’t there yet so I don’t see the problem.
- caaqil 5y agoPeople dismiss blockchain mainly because it's a solution looking for a problem, something that's not true for the other examples in your last paragraph. The fact that the people who are trying to sell it almost always seem to peddle some old scams in a trenchcoat doesn't help.
- z3c0 5y agoIt isn't a "solution looking for a problem" anymore than any technology repeatedly shoehorned into unnecessary situations. NoSQL and AI were deployed in the same overzealous fashion, with the latter producing almost as much snake oil as the blockchain scene. If anything, it's the FOMO-ing developers of these techs that are looking for problems.
- sergioisidoro 5y agoBlockchain is a nice technology for having distributed consensus databases. NFTs are a good tool for protocols, identity and uniqueness in a decentralised system. So they want decentralisation and reject some key technologies and tools to enable it? I think it's time we dissociate the the technologies from its use. Blockchain is more than a ledger of monetary transactions. NFT is more than NFT art.
- nailer 5y agoWhy do they authors consider blockchain + NFTs + metaverse“ to be “libertarian bullshit” but not decentralisation?
- iqanq 5y ago[flagged]
- austincheney 5y agoA petition is irrelevant. All that matters is a race to a product.
- gorgoiler 5y agoThere is really very little content here, particularly compared to the amount of well worn argument that it’s likely to engender.
- hagbard_c 5y agoHow about "the web" as a moniker, without a serial number? That is how the thing started and that is how it still can be used. HTTP still works, HTML still works, links still work and with that the web still works. Add whatever whiz-bang gadgetry you want but make sure the thing still works without the makeup and you're on the web - congratulations.
- pdenton 5y agoThe page uses HTML5 and it's responsive, so it's at least web 2.0
- jraph 5y agoFor me, Web 2.0 means that the page communicates with the server with something like AJAX or Websockets: content changes/is updated/is fetched from the server without a page reload; 1 web page = 1 HTTP request to an HTML page is not true. It's not related to a version of HTML or to CSS features.
- bouncycastle 5y agoThere is nothing political about web3, it has nothing to do with right libertarian. A blockchain is simply a database with decentralized writing properties and distributed reading properties. Since when do databases have political leaning? That website is completely nuts.
- NorwegianDude 5y agoI've been a fan of blockchains ever since I found bitcoin well over a decade ago. I'm a huge fan of decentralization, but the limits of blockchains have been pretty clear for a long time now. While blockchains are cool and possibly fully decentralized, they don't scale well. So far we're no closer to finding a way to scale without making it more centralized. As usage goes up, centralization goes up too. One can no longer host a full node on basically any hardware. I fully understand that people are sceptical. The amount of bullshit is insane, and basically no users have any idea about how any of this works. I've seen a lot of sites and services that promises you amazing things, without giving any details about how it archives it. Most people don't care if it works in a sensible way,they just don't want to miss out.
- birracerveza 5y agoAvalanche and Tezos disagree with you. You can run a node on a raspberry pi.
- NorwegianDude 5y agoIf you think you can run a full node on a pi then I can't help you. If you don't belive me, check e.g. avalanche: https://support.avax.network/en/articles/4064879-technical-requirements-for-running-a-validator-node-on-avalanche https://support.avax.network/en/articles/4064879-technical-r...
- dmitriid 5y ago"Avalanche is an incredibly lightweight protocol, so the minimum computer requirements are quite modest. Hardware: 8 core CPU >= 2 GHz, RAM: 16 GB, Storage: 200 GB free space." Is this satire? I can't tell anymore.
- birracerveza 5y agoThanks for correcting me, I confused it with Tezos.
- 5y ago
- mkdirp 5y agoThis seems silly. Blockchain is a means of achieving decentralisation, arguable one of the better ways as it currently stands. People abuse it by doing stupid shit like NFT, but that doesn't invalidate the use-cases for blockchain. That's like saying RDBMS systems are bullshit because people make banks with them and banks manage fictional money. Block chain solves a real problem of trust (albeit with some caveats). NFTs do no such thing.
- birracerveza 5y agoNFTs are just one more tool available in the crypto toolbox. It has actual uses, but people so far only used it to sell monkey jpegs
- mkdirp 5y agoReally? I've personally yet to see or hear of a valid use-case that isn't overpriced jpegs. I'd love to know what those valid use cases are.
- dmitriid 5y agoYou will never get an answer to that
- birracerveza 5y agoYou will never get an answer if you're unwilling to hear the answers.
- dmitriid 5y agoIf only anyone would actually give satisfactory answers. And not wave hands and add "because blockchain".
- birracerveza 5y agoExcept I did, and your answer was "Yeah but you don't need blockchain for that!", which further confirms that you don't want to hear answers.
- mashpoe 5y agoI don't even get the idea of these web versions. They just seem like buzzwords to me. Sure there are differences in the general trends with how people interact with the web and internet, but it's more complicated than that. I understand the difference between Web1 an Web2 since web pages have become a lot more interactive over the years, but that doesn't justify making special terms for old and modern sites. Nobody goes around saying "this website is Web1 and this one is Web2." If a website looks old you just say it looks old. There's no specific cutoff point that makes sense for web versions. Websites have slowly become more and more interactive over the years. Since pages started to become interactive, there have been so many changes to the web that are arguably just as worthy to get their own version numbers. CSS has gained so much more functionality, JavaScript has become a compilation target, and with the advent of WebAssembly, virtually any programming language to be used on the web. All of the things that make Web3 different from Web2 seem like niche use cases for the web, not something that will replace everything like more interactive web pages have. There won't be any decentralized websites, there will just be a bunch of regular websites where you create an account to interact with technology that has been around for over a decade. The other changes I mentioned actually pertain to the web, while the trendy stuff like the "metaverse" and "blockchain" actually have nothing to do with the web. Maybe they can interact with the web, but a lot of things can interact with the web. With the click of a button I can have virtually anything delivered to my doorstep, but for some reason owning a picture of a monkey is more impressive to some people.
- giantrobot 5y ago> I don't even get the idea of these web versions. They just seem like buzzwords to me. They are buzzwords. There was no Web 1.0. The "Web 2.0" was coined as an umbrella term for AJAX-using sites that allowed a lot more interactivity. It's not like some product got a version bump. It became vogue to refer to older style static or HTTP form POST sites as "Web 1.0". Now the cryptobros are trying really hard to push "web3" as a buzzword for their dystopian blockchain based nightmares. Tim Berners-Lee had already started pushing "Web 3.0" to describe the semantic web technologies he's very excited about.
- andreimackenzie 5y agoI am getting an `alert(1)` when visiting this site. This smells like cross-site scripting. Beware.
- vanyle 5y agoThanks for the XSS Jo mama !
- muraiki 5y agoFlagged because it looks like this site has been XSS'd
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- user432678 5y ago> web0 = decentralisation It’s already the thing, and it’s called Web 1.0. Oh, wait a second. This manifesto is from the same guy who basically stole the idea of indie web, called it “small web”, created poorly designed JS framework for it and made a website with big “please donate” button. Yep, seems legit.
- akagusu 5y agoWhy was this post flagged?