> Storing user information on be blockchain not only sounds unnecessary, it's also illegal in the EU. It's necessary for the most basic of blockchain functions

> Storing user information on be blockchain not only sounds unnecessary, it's also illegal in the EU. It's necessary for the most basic of blockchain functions; you cannot transact and have a coherent model of accounts without identifying users on chain, even if its done confidentially. Unless owning coins on a blockchain is illegal in Europe, you'll have to clarify. The extension of blockchain to store information other than account balance of the native chain is natural - so long as that information has comparable value to coins on the chain and you can justify it having all those properties. It's already massively useful for wrapped assets. If you can figure out how to make a crypto that only requires PGP keys then you've solved a massive problem about storing account balances or other information you would like to take on the properties of data on chain - congratulations. > Is the idea of web3 to put the entire internet on some kind of blockchain to replace HTTP? Wouldn't that be crazy inefficient? This comes up a lot. No. No serious, competent person in crypto has ever entertained putting the whole internet on the blockchain despite the being what many a skeptic retort. As I said earlier, as much should be off chain as possible, meaning either web2 or peer to peer access. When blockchains people use are a factor better at scaling this will include more and more data and uses. With current scaling and capital allocation (mostly in the slow, expensive Eth) the only businesses that can justify their existence on chain must offer some sort of monetary interest to their users. I'm sure you have a lot more questions and well reasoned doubts that many in the crypto space have realized and are working on, I enjoy chatting about this stuff but am going to cut myself off before I go too long. If you wanna chat more you can always DM me.