5 ms·

I would separate the crypto craze from Web3 to be honest. On its face it doesn't really have to do with crypto currency at all. A centralization is otherwise no

I would separate the crypto craze from Web3 to be honest. On its face it doesn't really have to do with crypto currency at all. A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users.

moron4hire 5y ago
The concept of web3 only exists to further the goals of cryptocurrency speculation, and the proposed technology is in no way distinguishable from cryptocurrency systems, so they really aren't unboxable.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Since any currency is merely an agreement about value between at least two parties, technology itself isn't going to differentiate what is and is not a "cryptocurrency" from "something using a blockchain".
cableshaft 5y ago
Yep, I was pretty blissfully ignorant of Web3 while into crypto for a long time. I eventually decided to make a deeper dive into it, but I could have easily kept ignoring it.
asow92 5y ago
Isn't the general thesis of Web3 partially based on the principles of decentralized blockchain technologies, a lot like crypto? If so they are certainly related to each other.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Well, then they are also related to a file checksum. I believe some ideas were around ledgers providing a means to authentication, which I don't like at all. For me it was about decentralized platforms to emancipate people from large social media moguls that have enough info on user behavior that they can influence behavior. Interconnectedness would ensure that the draw of peers using the same network would vanish. At least theoretically.
- lukifer 5y ago
  There is no shortage of snake-oil and perverse incentives in the space; but the most charitable reading is that Web3 is a diverse family of technologies attempting to fill in two gaps from Web1: (a) self-sovereign identity, and (b) distributed value exchange. Their absence fueled the rise of the quasi-feudal [0] Web 2.0: outsourcing these functions to centralized firms (Google ID, PayPal). The proposed identity models sometimes involve blockchains and smart contracts, but can also use simple private keys, or trustful P2P models like holochains. The solutions for value exchange are where crypto-tokens enter the picture (setting aside the perverse incentives of Supply attempting to create its own Demand); but one could certainly envision the same technology working with state-backed digital currencies, while still disintermediating finance middlemen (credit card fees, eBay fees, brokerage fees, etc). [0] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_comes_to_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_com...
enumjorge 5y ago
> A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users. I’d argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are too abstract for most people to appreciate.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  I'd argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are clear and concise. edit: Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Can you enumerate them?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      I said "I'd argue" like I would, just as GP said "I'd argue". That means we aren't yet. I just wanted to voice that I disagreed so others could pick it up. Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc. Obvious stuff I don't want to ramble about. Only HN would try to downplay decentralization, something we know the benefits of, only to bash crypto/web3.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        Actually, the benefits of decentralization are worth weighing against the costs of decentralization. There's a reason that the process of going from web1 to web2 involved quite a bit of centralization. If web3 cannot meet its goals in a way that either maintains those benefits or creates a new benefit that substantively offsets the cost of losing them, people won't care. And if people don't care, this web3 will be as much an empty buzzword as when web3 referred to Siri and Alexa.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        Web2 will still exist if it's so great. I guess we'll see who is right in the end. I for one just like the progression and the technology, and the empowerment it gives users vs operators. I guess that's lost here.
the_gastropod 5y ago
They're absolutely inseparable. Web3, at least as I understand its fuzzy definition, is: websites, but... state stored on the blockchain! There are virtually 0 technical reasons for doing this—decentralization and most of the "neat" examples shown (e.g., logging into arbitrary websites without signing up) can be done much better sans-blockchain, using plain old asymmetric keys. What's motivating this is people with deeply vested interest (a16z investors, in no small part) in crypto tokens (e.g. ETH) increasing in price.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't have the capability to do smart contracts. There are bitcoin maximalists that are pretty anti-Web3. Jack Dorsey being one of those people.
  - the_gastropod 5y ago
    Web3 depends on "crypto" (blockchains). "Crypto" does not depend on Web3.
- smrtinsert 5y ago
  Immutable websites aren't an interesting idea?
  - the_gastropod 5y ago
    No. And, frankly, I'd think anyone with a half-a-brain and 30 seconds to think through the ramifications of such a terrible idea would be able to figure out why.
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      Then web.archive.org wouldn't exist.
      - the_gastropod 5y ago
shadowgovt 5y ago
Agreed. To the extent that web3 means anything (in he sense that web2 meant anything), it's a descriptor of the goal, not the technology involved. The goal is to give people control of their online experience again (like in web1) without throwing out the benefits that came along with web2 (simplicity for the end user and the ability to execute online commerce). In the goal-oriented mindset, blockchain is one of many solutions that could work, but predicting it will be the one is would have been like predicting that PayPal, Google, and Amazon were going to happen at the beginning of the dot-com boom. Too much focus on the technology increases the likelihood that nothing will happen. Remember, "web3" had already been used previously to refer to online assistants like Alexa and Siri before this blockchain craze; predicting the socioeconomic future by scrying technology is a fraught game.
acdha 5y ago
“Web3” is a marketing campaign created to drum up demand for cryptocurrencies. That’s why the sales people blow off technical concerns claiming that the answer is to buy the tokens they conveniently already own so you can then maybe help build a system which actually works later.
- phyalow 5y ago
  No "Web3" really isnt just a marketing campign. Look up web3.js, which had its first release in 2015, it offers a set of tools for creating and interacting with ephemeral/emergent internet architecture which is what Web3 is really about. I dont disagree there are a number of less than scrupulous people floating around selling worthless tokens, BUT to solely focus on them is to ignore a real core of interesting computer science advances.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Are you not talking about https://github.com/ethereumproject/web3.js https://github.com/ethereumproject/web3.js? That’s built on Ethereum to encourage use of their microtransaction-based service. > BUT to solely focus on them is to ignore a real core of interesting computer science advances. Examples? Specifically, which advances are you referring to which solve a problem other than “now you can do something you could do before but by paying me instead”?
    - phyalow 5y ago
      >>Examples? See: Whisper [1] and Swarm [2] [1] https://eth.wiki/concepts/whisper/whisper-overview https://eth.wiki/concepts/whisper/whisper-overview [2] https://www.ethswarm.org/ https://www.ethswarm.org/
      - acdha 5y ago
        How do those innovate beyond the decades of prior art in both cases? Proof of work means Whisper will be expensive so it must have a compelling advantage which helps the applications be correspondingly more capable to compensate for that. Similarly, storage using smart contracts does not seem like a game changer compared to similar projects' weak market demand.

I would separate the crypto craze from Web3 to be honest. On its face it doesn't really have to do with crypto currency at all. A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users.

moron4hire 5y ago

The concept of web3 only exists to further the goals of cryptocurrency speculation, and the proposed technology is in no way distinguishable from cryptocurrency systems, so they really aren't unboxable.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Since any currency is merely an agreement about value between at least two parties, technology itself isn't going to differentiate what is and is not a "cryptocurrency" from "something using a blockchain".

cableshaft 5y ago

Yep, I was pretty blissfully ignorant of Web3 while into crypto for a long time. I eventually decided to make a deeper dive into it, but I could have easily kept ignoring it.

asow92 5y ago

Isn't the general thesis of Web3 partially based on the principles of decentralized blockchain technologies, a lot like crypto? If so they are certainly related to each other.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Well, then they are also related to a file checksum. I believe some ideas were around ledgers providing a means to authentication, which I don't like at all. For me it was about decentralized platforms to emancipate people from large social media moguls that have enough info on user behavior that they can influence behavior. Interconnectedness would ensure that the draw of peers using the same network would vanish. At least theoretically.
lukifer 5y ago
There is no shortage of snake-oil and perverse incentives in the space; but the most charitable reading is that Web3 is a diverse family of technologies attempting to fill in two gaps from Web1: (a) self-sovereign identity, and (b) distributed value exchange. Their absence fueled the rise of the quasi-feudal [0] Web 2.0: outsourcing these functions to centralized firms (Google ID, PayPal). The proposed identity models sometimes involve blockchains and smart contracts, but can also use simple private keys, or trustful P2P models like holochains. The solutions for value exchange are where crypto-tokens enter the picture (setting aside the perverse incentives of Supply attempting to create its own Demand); but one could certainly envision the same technology working with state-backed digital currencies, while still disintermediating finance middlemen (credit card fees, eBay fees, brokerage fees, etc). [0] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_comes_to_sec.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/11/when_it_com...

enumjorge 5y ago

> A centralization is otherwise no really desirable for many users. I’d argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are too abstract for most people to appreciate.

hunterb123 5y ago
I'd argue the opposite-the benefits of decentralization are clear and concise. edit: Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Can you enumerate them?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    I said "I'd argue" like I would, just as GP said "I'd argue". That means we aren't yet. I just wanted to voice that I disagreed so others could pick it up. Central point of failures, ownership, privacy, etc etc. Obvious stuff I don't want to ramble about. Only HN would try to downplay decentralization, something we know the benefits of, only to bash crypto/web3.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Actually, the benefits of decentralization are worth weighing against the costs of decentralization. There's a reason that the process of going from web1 to web2 involved quite a bit of centralization. If web3 cannot meet its goals in a way that either maintains those benefits or creates a new benefit that substantively offsets the cost of losing them, people won't care. And if people don't care, this web3 will be as much an empty buzzword as when web3 referred to Siri and Alexa.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        Web2 will still exist if it's so great. I guess we'll see who is right in the end. I for one just like the progression and the technology, and the empowerment it gives users vs operators. I guess that's lost here.

the_gastropod 5y ago

They're absolutely inseparable. Web3, at least as I understand its fuzzy definition, is: websites, but... state stored on the blockchain! There are virtually 0 technical reasons for doing this—decentralization and most of the "neat" examples shown (e.g., logging into arbitrary websites without signing up) can be done much better sans-blockchain, using plain old asymmetric keys. What's motivating this is people with deeply vested interest (a16z investors, in no small part) in crypto tokens (e.g. ETH) increasing in price.

cableshaft 5y ago
Bitcoin doesn't have the capability to do smart contracts. There are bitcoin maximalists that are pretty anti-Web3. Jack Dorsey being one of those people.
- the_gastropod 5y ago
  Web3 depends on "crypto" (blockchains). "Crypto" does not depend on Web3.
smrtinsert 5y ago
Immutable websites aren't an interesting idea?
- the_gastropod 5y ago
  No. And, frankly, I'd think anyone with a half-a-brain and 30 seconds to think through the ramifications of such a terrible idea would be able to figure out why.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    Then web.archive.org wouldn't exist.
    - the_gastropod 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

Agreed. To the extent that web3 means anything (in he sense that web2 meant anything), it's a descriptor of the goal, not the technology involved. The goal is to give people control of their online experience again (like in web1) without throwing out the benefits that came along with web2 (simplicity for the end user and the ability to execute online commerce). In the goal-oriented mindset, blockchain is one of many solutions that could work, but predicting it will be the one is would have been like predicting that PayPal, Google, and Amazon were going to happen at the beginning of the dot-com boom. Too much focus on the technology increases the likelihood that nothing will happen. Remember, "web3" had already been used previously to refer to online assistants like Alexa and Siri before this blockchain craze; predicting the socioeconomic future by scrying technology is a fraught game.

acdha 5y ago

“Web3” is a marketing campaign created to drum up demand for cryptocurrencies. That’s why the sales people blow off technical concerns claiming that the answer is to buy the tokens they conveniently already own so you can then maybe help build a system which actually works later.

phyalow 5y ago
No "Web3" really isnt just a marketing campign. Look up web3.js, which had its first release in 2015, it offers a set of tools for creating and interacting with ephemeral/emergent internet architecture which is what Web3 is really about. I dont disagree there are a number of less than scrupulous people floating around selling worthless tokens, BUT to solely focus on them is to ignore a real core of interesting computer science advances.
- acdha 5y ago
  Are you not talking about https://github.com/ethereumproject/web3.js https://github.com/ethereumproject/web3.js? That’s built on Ethereum to encourage use of their microtransaction-based service. > BUT to solely focus on them is to ignore a real core of interesting computer science advances. Examples? Specifically, which advances are you referring to which solve a problem other than “now you can do something you could do before but by paying me instead”?
  - phyalow 5y ago
    >>Examples? See: Whisper [1] and Swarm [2] [1] https://eth.wiki/concepts/whisper/whisper-overview https://eth.wiki/concepts/whisper/whisper-overview [2] https://www.ethswarm.org/ https://www.ethswarm.org/
    - acdha 5y ago
      How do those innovate beyond the decades of prior art in both cases? Proof of work means Whisper will be expensive so it must have a compelling advantage which helps the applications be correspondingly more capable to compensate for that. Similarly, storage using smart contracts does not seem like a game changer compared to similar projects' weak market demand.