4 ms·

Diaspora and Mastodon. These are the prime example what the web 3 generation wants: no central company, everyone runs it‘s own server, user is in control of all

by tpetry 5y ago

Diaspora and Mastodon. These are the prime example what the web 3 generation wants: no central company, everyone runs it‘s own server, user is in control of all it‘s data And they are a total empty space. Because it‘s complex to use ans is missing the network effect which is really really hard to get without a central company doing marketing in some form

thebean11 5y ago
Got it I see what you mean. In my mind though, the real innovation in web3 is native ability to move money around, and turing complete (ish) programmability. Comparisons to social networks seems like apples and oranges. It’s not a product that needs to be marketed to end users. Think AWS not Amazon.com. The people building products on it will do the marketing.
- jjulius 5y ago
  But web 1.0 and 2.0 are largely called as much based on what end users did with it and how they interacted with one another. You can't just ignore that vital component in regards to 3.0.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Sorry what do you mean by 1 and 2 being “called as much”? Being called decentralized?
- bccdee 5y ago
  AWS does not have any trouble moving money around or writing programs to move money around. Finance has been digitized for ages. You might say "those are just digital abstractions — this is native." But so what? What does it matter if my money transfer routine talks to a bank or broadcasts a new block? It does the same thing in the end, except that the blockchain version is slower and more expensive. Blockchain offers no concrete advantages over traditional finance except for decreased regulation. That's why it's so hard to argue in favour of blockchain as a replacement for traditional financial systems. You end up constructing weak arguments, because you can't play to blockchain's strengths. Let me present the strong argument in favour of blockchain: "Blockchain helps you make lots of anonymous money through pump & dumps, ransomware, and other assorted scams." This is an unethical argument, but a concretely fact-based one. The track record speaks for itself. Look how much more robust the strong argument is than any argument about decentralization for its own sake, or about the "native"ness of bitcoin transfers. Occam's razor suggests that the strong argument is the driving force behind blockchain adoption, not the weak ones. Nobody cares about decentralization. They just wanna make a buck.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    The value of nativeness combined with a totally neutral execution environment is that money can be directly controlled by software, with no practical human override. Suddenly the cost and risk of transactions goes down, as I don’t need to worry about whether I will get paid, or whether the intermediary actually handling the money will arbitrarily decide to freeze my account. Obviously this is a double edged sword; having no human override is actually a very bad thing for many things. You can code in human overrides of course, but they are transparent to all parties. When you make a bank transfer or a PayPal transaction, it’s 100% opaque. The terms are not truly binding and it can be reverted or altered for any or no reason. I’m not arguing this is the reason for valuations currently, but I find it pretty surprising how many people can’t or won’t understand the value of a neutral execution environment for financial transactions. It is not something that exists elsewhere.
    - DougN7 5y ago
      I’m in my 50’s and not getting paid or having account get frozen has never happened to me during my entire life, and is not something I’m concerned about. If would be cool if defi was solving an actual problem most people have, but I’m still not seeing it.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        1. It’s actually pretty common, my PayPal account is frozen for no reason, I would need to send passport scans to unlock it which I won’t do. 2. We aren’t necessarily the target market. Think more large investment / B2B transactions not consumer payments.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      > When you make a bank transfer or a PayPal transaction, it’s 100% opaque. The terms are not truly binding and it can be reverted or altered for any or no reason. Yeah, they can tell that to my lawyer. Banks don't make the rules — regulators do, and I can file suit to have a judge enforce those rules. If my money disappears, I can hold my bank to account. But a judge can't rewrite the blockchain, so cryptocurrency has become a safe haven for fraud. You've got it exactly backwards: It's blockchain-based banking that puts customers at risk of predation. > I find it pretty surprising how many people can’t or won’t understand the value of a neutral execution environment for financial transactions If it had value for banks, banks would be using it. If it has value for customers, then tell me: As a customer, which desirable guarantees does blockchain provide me that banking regulations don't?

by tpetry 5y ago

thebean11 5y ago

Got it I see what you mean. In my mind though, the real innovation in web3 is native ability to move money around, and turing complete (ish) programmability. Comparisons to social networks seems like apples and oranges. It’s not a product that needs to be marketed to end users. Think AWS not Amazon.com. The people building products on it will do the marketing.

jjulius 5y ago
But web 1.0 and 2.0 are largely called as much based on what end users did with it and how they interacted with one another. You can't just ignore that vital component in regards to 3.0.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Sorry what do you mean by 1 and 2 being “called as much”? Being called decentralized?
bccdee 5y ago
AWS does not have any trouble moving money around or writing programs to move money around. Finance has been digitized for ages. You might say "those are just digital abstractions — this is native." But so what? What does it matter if my money transfer routine talks to a bank or broadcasts a new block? It does the same thing in the end, except that the blockchain version is slower and more expensive. Blockchain offers no concrete advantages over traditional finance except for decreased regulation. That's why it's so hard to argue in favour of blockchain as a replacement for traditional financial systems. You end up constructing weak arguments, because you can't play to blockchain's strengths. Let me present the strong argument in favour of blockchain: "Blockchain helps you make lots of anonymous money through pump & dumps, ransomware, and other assorted scams." This is an unethical argument, but a concretely fact-based one. The track record speaks for itself. Look how much more robust the strong argument is than any argument about decentralization for its own sake, or about the "native"ness of bitcoin transfers. Occam's razor suggests that the strong argument is the driving force behind blockchain adoption, not the weak ones. Nobody cares about decentralization. They just wanna make a buck.
- thebean11 5y ago
  The value of nativeness combined with a totally neutral execution environment is that money can be directly controlled by software, with no practical human override. Suddenly the cost and risk of transactions goes down, as I don’t need to worry about whether I will get paid, or whether the intermediary actually handling the money will arbitrarily decide to freeze my account. Obviously this is a double edged sword; having no human override is actually a very bad thing for many things. You can code in human overrides of course, but they are transparent to all parties. When you make a bank transfer or a PayPal transaction, it’s 100% opaque. The terms are not truly binding and it can be reverted or altered for any or no reason. I’m not arguing this is the reason for valuations currently, but I find it pretty surprising how many people can’t or won’t understand the value of a neutral execution environment for financial transactions. It is not something that exists elsewhere.
  - DougN7 5y ago
    I’m in my 50’s and not getting paid or having account get frozen has never happened to me during my entire life, and is not something I’m concerned about. If would be cool if defi was solving an actual problem most people have, but I’m still not seeing it.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      1. It’s actually pretty common, my PayPal account is frozen for no reason, I would need to send passport scans to unlock it which I won’t do. 2. We aren’t necessarily the target market. Think more large investment / B2B transactions not consumer payments.
  - bccdee 5y ago
    > When you make a bank transfer or a PayPal transaction, it’s 100% opaque. The terms are not truly binding and it can be reverted or altered for any or no reason. Yeah, they can tell that to my lawyer. Banks don't make the rules — regulators do, and I can file suit to have a judge enforce those rules. If my money disappears, I can hold my bank to account. But a judge can't rewrite the blockchain, so cryptocurrency has become a safe haven for fraud. You've got it exactly backwards: It's blockchain-based banking that puts customers at risk of predation. > I find it pretty surprising how many people can’t or won’t understand the value of a neutral execution environment for financial transactions If it had value for banks, banks would be using it. If it has value for customers, then tell me: As a customer, which desirable guarantees does blockchain provide me that banking regulations don't?