3 ms·
Would it be better if we (the shill council for naming things) just renamed it to ‘net’? You seem to imply that ‘web’ is taken by our current stack Would the f
by ThalesX 5y ago
Would it be better if we (the shill council for naming things) just renamed it to ‘net’? You seem to imply that ‘web’ is taken by our current stack
Would the fact that ‘net’ is aiming to make content-addressing a first hand citizen give any weight into being some sort of web? (this seems to be what the paragraph you quoted seems to be mostly concerned with)
Would being able to authenticate to websites with your crypto wallet in a frictionless way give any weight into being some sort of web?
Would a data structure that allows us to content-address files and ensure content resilience give any weight into being some sort of web?
I guess the answer to all my three questions is no because these are not covered in the narrow definition of the web that you provided.
I’m not sure what people loving the web has anything to do with the fact that ‘web3’ seems to be the slug for this new stack shuffle. Do people love web1? web2? This is a non issue. People love being connected as simple as possible, they don’t love the web for using HTTP instead of IPFS…
- cormacrelf 5y agoIt seems you have understood. The web is a specific thing, in the same way a printing press is a specific thing. The folks who named the web didn’t call it “electronic printing press” in the same way they named email, because it is a unique and separate idea. The people who named Web 2.0 recognised it was not all that different from before, just a few less page reloads. All your suggestions are unique and separate ideas from the web, and that is great. It’s not that difficult to understand. Give them a different name.