6 ms·

Can someone explain what Web3 is in 50 words or less to a layman?

by Victerius 5y ago

thr0wawayf00 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smt88 5y ago
  These are the first 56 words of the article: > "Web3 is an idea for a new iteration of the World Wide Web based on blockchain technology, which incorporate concepts such as decentralization and token-based economics. Some technologists and journalists have contrasted it with Web 2.0, wherein they say data and content are centralized in a small group of companies sometimes referred to as 'Big Tech'." The first sentence is vague. The existing Web also incorporates concepts such as decentralization and token-based economics. The second sentence is a social/political characteristic, not a technical one. There is no reason the Web must be an oligopoly. Similarly, there's no reason "web3" must not be one. So we're still left without a 50-word description of web3. The above is a vague statement followed by an aspirational (rather than descriptive) statement.
stanislavb 5y ago
No.
Lamad123 5y ago
or ever a 1000 words!
TobyTheDog123 5y ago
Mostly decentralization I think. Instead of going to Cloudflare for CDN, AWS for file storage, everything is hosted on other people's computers for a fee.
ipnon 5y ago
It's a bit of a misnomer. Web2 was supposed to be a utopian version of the open Web where all data was available via API, and the noble task was to connect all this data with programs until all information was available to the world. Web3 is really the same utopia wrapped up in the blockchain, perhaps with money replacing data and blockchains replacing APIs. 65 words, but still ...
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Web3 is hosting content on a blockchain.
cdiddy2 5y ago
web 1 = read web 2 = write web 3 = own
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  I prefer Web 1 = amateur Web 2 = commercialized Web 3 = financialized
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hda2 5y ago
  > web 3 = own 1. How would this work for me as a user? Are web 3 "websites" (or whatever constitutes a service or company) not able to retain a copy of my data? Or phrased in another way, what prevents websites from also /owning/ my data? 2. How would this work for me as a service? Aside from my service's domain and internet address which are annoyingly hard to "own", what else is there to own that I don't already own? I don't share hn's irrational hatred towards crypto so I'm not against joining whatever web3 is supposed to be (in principle) but I've yet to be shown a single benefit in doing so. Give me a single clear benefit to using or offering a web3 service.
  - cdiddy2 5y ago
    Imagine there is a social media site with a friends list feature. Instead of the site owning the friends social graph there are a few transactions on chain the say who are friends with. The site looks at that data to automatically populate your friends list when you use your web wallet to sign in with them. No username/password logins needed in this world. The user can update their own social graph completely separate from the site with them having no control over who are are/aren't friends with. Now parts of the site are still centralized meaning that they could ignore whatever is on chain, but in that case its a lot easier for a competitor to start up, the users go over there with their web wallet sign on and boom the social graph is fully imported for them. Can even have parts of their profile/nft profile picture and ENS name come over as well. I hope that gets the gist of it, and it is still a long way from fully being realized but there are already beginnings with ENS profiles and avatars easily used between sites and lens protocol trying to make the social graph aspect. https://lens.dev/ https://lens.dev/
er4hn 5y ago
I'll quote Ubik at you in 100 words. === The door refused to open. It said, "Five cents, please." He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. "I'll pay you tomorrow," he told the door. Again it remained locked tight. "What I pay you," he informed it, "is in the nature of a gratuity; I don't have to pay you." "I think otherwise," the door said. "Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt." ...he found the contract. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. "You discover I'm right," the door said. It sounded smug. ===
Diggsey 5y ago
An attempt to stay relevant by piggybacking on the historical success of the web 2.0 brand, pushed by those personally invested in crypto, but who are totally not pushing this for their own profit. Or, less sarcastically, it's a collection of technologies that attempt to link the blockchain with the "real world", supposedly bringing back decentralization to the web in the process. I'd like to elaborate but there's really nothing more to elaborate on, the entire thing is a vague collection of ideas (such as "maybe users could use blockchain-based microtransactions to pay for the sites they use instead of being served adverts") that nobody's actually figured out what to do with. Why exactly blockchain is required for these ideas, or exactly what ideas constitute "web 3.0" is still an unanswered question...
achow 5y ago
Web1 was read only (ex. blog) Web2 is Read+Write (all interactive apps - email travel booking, stock trading etc. However, the content of these are owned by mega or small corp) Web3 is Read+Write &'Own' your data. By virtue of blockchain tech you can take your data/content and use some other service. You have your NFTs, you have your Bitcoins, you can use any service to manage those.
- pavlov 5y ago
  So if “web1” was supposedly read only and the example of that is a blog, who wrote the blogs?
  - worthless-trash 5y ago
    I agree, i had a bigger tirade written about versioning the web, into such 'cleanly' delineated markings, but I know it'd upset the hive mind.
- worthless-trash 5y ago
  Defining web versions is a jerk move. I know its 'unsocial' and 'nasty' , it has to be said, we should feeding the jerks.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Forums were read/write applications that should be part of "web 2.0", and they existed in the early 2000s. Then Gmail came along, which was the first "web 2.0" application, and eventually HTML5 came around the corner, which truly meant "web 2.0" was now ubiquitous. The mega corps took over the internet but in my experience that didn't happen until there were at least three popular "web2" definitions. These terms are meaningless and arbitrary. I've never heard of popularized "read only" websites, even in the late 90s websites had things like guest books where you could leave a comment. I'm also not sure about the legal ownership one might derive from the blockchain. Going by legal standards, I don't think you own anything unless you sign a sales agreement that says the cryptocurrency exchange means something related to ownership.
peterburkimsher 5y ago
Web1: run a server, people (clients) post content, and you save it on your server. Web2: pay someone else to run a server "in the cloud". They save the content. Web3: run a server with all your own content. Other people run clients that index and let you search other peoples' content. Concisely: Web3 is the same as Web1, but with client-server the other way around.
- djur 5y ago
  Except that "smart contracts" etc. are very much paying someone else to run a server in the cloud.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Is freenet web3?
yashg 5y ago
Someone created a JS library to interact with the Ethereum blockchain and named it web3. Making it appear like it was future of the web. In reality it was just one more attempt to make blockchain look authentic and useful. Blockchain has only one real use - storing tokens. Someone needs to pay real money for the tokens for the token creators to cash out. So they keep cooking up new ways to attract unsuspecting common people into the cryptoverse. Web3 is that.
bosky101 5y ago
web1 - read from centralized servers, send 1:1 web2 - read/write/contribute to centralized servers, who moderate ownership web3 - anyone can read, write, host. Consume for free(termed gasless), but contribution costs. Trustless, so self attesting of ownership. Content in web2 was free because of an ad supported model. I think it's important to note that content is free in the web3 world. Which means that anything can bubble up. And when it does - ownership is important. Proving ownership needs gas but doesn't need anyone. Contribution needs gas. Time will tell if contributing to blockchains will remain gas-supported or if consumers will be willing to settle for X, to contribute for free. X could be be rev share or loss of control via some centralization or custody. There always will and rightly should always continue to exist - opportunities to bring mass adoption via better UX. This may lead to a centralized service who identifies and fixes this gap eg- metamask. Good for them to identify and execute something that people wanted. It's all about finding opportunities in a market eventually.
- alexb_ 5y ago
  >centralized servers The internet was not designed to be centralized. It become centralized because everybody realized centralization was a way easier way to do everything.
hannasanarion 5y ago
Crypto is a scam that is approaching bezzle, and the early entrants need one last big round of rubes so that they can cash out, web3 is the latest of a long series of meaningless buzzwords to draw in the last suckers.

Can someone explain what Web3 is in 50 words or less to a layman?

thr0wawayf00 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smt88 5y ago
These are the first 56 words of the article: > "Web3 is an idea for a new iteration of the World Wide Web based on blockchain technology, which incorporate concepts such as decentralization and token-based economics. Some technologists and journalists have contrasted it with Web 2.0, wherein they say data and content are centralized in a small group of companies sometimes referred to as 'Big Tech'." The first sentence is vague. The existing Web also incorporates concepts such as decentralization and token-based economics. The second sentence is a social/political characteristic, not a technical one. There is no reason the Web must be an oligopoly. Similarly, there's no reason "web3" must not be one. So we're still left without a 50-word description of web3. The above is a vague statement followed by an aspirational (rather than descriptive) statement.

stanislavb 5y ago

No.

Lamad123 5y ago

or ever a 1000 words!

TobyTheDog123 5y ago

Mostly decentralization I think. Instead of going to Cloudflare for CDN, AWS for file storage, everything is hosted on other people's computers for a fee.

ipnon 5y ago

It's a bit of a misnomer. Web2 was supposed to be a utopian version of the open Web where all data was available via API, and the noble task was to connect all this data with programs until all information was available to the world. Web3 is really the same utopia wrapped up in the blockchain, perhaps with money replacing data and blockchains replacing APIs. 65 words, but still ...

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

Web3 is hosting content on a blockchain.

cdiddy2 5y ago

web 1 = read web 2 = write web 3 = own

AlexandrB 5y ago
I prefer Web 1 = amateur Web 2 = commercialized Web 3 = financialized
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hda2 5y ago
> web 3 = own 1. How would this work for me as a user? Are web 3 "websites" (or whatever constitutes a service or company) not able to retain a copy of my data? Or phrased in another way, what prevents websites from also /owning/ my data? 2. How would this work for me as a service? Aside from my service's domain and internet address which are annoyingly hard to "own", what else is there to own that I don't already own? I don't share hn's irrational hatred towards crypto so I'm not against joining whatever web3 is supposed to be (in principle) but I've yet to be shown a single benefit in doing so. Give me a single clear benefit to using or offering a web3 service.
- cdiddy2 5y ago
  Imagine there is a social media site with a friends list feature. Instead of the site owning the friends social graph there are a few transactions on chain the say who are friends with. The site looks at that data to automatically populate your friends list when you use your web wallet to sign in with them. No username/password logins needed in this world. The user can update their own social graph completely separate from the site with them having no control over who are are/aren't friends with. Now parts of the site are still centralized meaning that they could ignore whatever is on chain, but in that case its a lot easier for a competitor to start up, the users go over there with their web wallet sign on and boom the social graph is fully imported for them. Can even have parts of their profile/nft profile picture and ENS name come over as well. I hope that gets the gist of it, and it is still a long way from fully being realized but there are already beginnings with ENS profiles and avatars easily used between sites and lens protocol trying to make the social graph aspect. https://lens.dev/ https://lens.dev/

er4hn 5y ago

I'll quote Ubik at you in 100 words. === The door refused to open. It said, "Five cents, please." He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. "I'll pay you tomorrow," he told the door. Again it remained locked tight. "What I pay you," he informed it, "is in the nature of a gratuity; I don't have to pay you." "I think otherwise," the door said. "Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt." ...he found the contract. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. "You discover I'm right," the door said. It sounded smug. ===

Diggsey 5y ago

An attempt to stay relevant by piggybacking on the historical success of the web 2.0 brand, pushed by those personally invested in crypto, but who are totally not pushing this for their own profit. Or, less sarcastically, it's a collection of technologies that attempt to link the blockchain with the "real world", supposedly bringing back decentralization to the web in the process. I'd like to elaborate but there's really nothing more to elaborate on, the entire thing is a vague collection of ideas (such as "maybe users could use blockchain-based microtransactions to pay for the sites they use instead of being served adverts") that nobody's actually figured out what to do with. Why exactly blockchain is required for these ideas, or exactly what ideas constitute "web 3.0" is still an unanswered question...

achow 5y ago

Web1 was read only (ex. blog) Web2 is Read+Write (all interactive apps - email travel booking, stock trading etc. However, the content of these are owned by mega or small corp) Web3 is Read+Write &'Own' your data. By virtue of blockchain tech you can take your data/content and use some other service. You have your NFTs, you have your Bitcoins, you can use any service to manage those.

pavlov 5y ago
So if “web1” was supposedly read only and the example of that is a blog, who wrote the blogs?
- worthless-trash 5y ago
  I agree, i had a bigger tirade written about versioning the web, into such 'cleanly' delineated markings, but I know it'd upset the hive mind.
worthless-trash 5y ago
Defining web versions is a jerk move. I know its 'unsocial' and 'nasty' , it has to be said, we should feeding the jerks.
jeroenhd 5y ago
Forums were read/write applications that should be part of "web 2.0", and they existed in the early 2000s. Then Gmail came along, which was the first "web 2.0" application, and eventually HTML5 came around the corner, which truly meant "web 2.0" was now ubiquitous. The mega corps took over the internet but in my experience that didn't happen until there were at least three popular "web2" definitions. These terms are meaningless and arbitrary. I've never heard of popularized "read only" websites, even in the late 90s websites had things like guest books where you could leave a comment. I'm also not sure about the legal ownership one might derive from the blockchain. Going by legal standards, I don't think you own anything unless you sign a sales agreement that says the cryptocurrency exchange means something related to ownership.

peterburkimsher 5y ago

Web1: run a server, people (clients) post content, and you save it on your server. Web2: pay someone else to run a server "in the cloud". They save the content. Web3: run a server with all your own content. Other people run clients that index and let you search other peoples' content. Concisely: Web3 is the same as Web1, but with client-server the other way around.

djur 5y ago
Except that "smart contracts" etc. are very much paying someone else to run a server in the cloud.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Is freenet web3?

yashg 5y ago

Someone created a JS library to interact with the Ethereum blockchain and named it web3. Making it appear like it was future of the web. In reality it was just one more attempt to make blockchain look authentic and useful. Blockchain has only one real use - storing tokens. Someone needs to pay real money for the tokens for the token creators to cash out. So they keep cooking up new ways to attract unsuspecting common people into the cryptoverse. Web3 is that.

bosky101 5y ago

web1 - read from centralized servers, send 1:1 web2 - read/write/contribute to centralized servers, who moderate ownership web3 - anyone can read, write, host. Consume for free(termed gasless), but contribution costs. Trustless, so self attesting of ownership. Content in web2 was free because of an ad supported model. I think it's important to note that content is free in the web3 world. Which means that anything can bubble up. And when it does - ownership is important. Proving ownership needs gas but doesn't need anyone. Contribution needs gas. Time will tell if contributing to blockchains will remain gas-supported or if consumers will be willing to settle for X, to contribute for free. X could be be rev share or loss of control via some centralization or custody. There always will and rightly should always continue to exist - opportunities to bring mass adoption via better UX. This may lead to a centralized service who identifies and fixes this gap eg- metamask. Good for them to identify and execute something that people wanted. It's all about finding opportunities in a market eventually.

alexb_ 5y ago
>centralized servers The internet was not designed to be centralized. It become centralized because everybody realized centralization was a way easier way to do everything.

hannasanarion 5y ago

Crypto is a scam that is approaching bezzle, and the early entrants need one last big round of rubes so that they can cash out, web3 is the latest of a long series of meaningless buzzwords to draw in the last suckers.