3 ms·

You forgot the second paragraph > That's one paragraph and already I can feel the simmering controversy, the reddening faces, the indignation and the angry acc

You forgot the second paragraph > That's one paragraph and already I can feel the simmering controversy, the reddening faces, the indignation and the angry accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about. What can I do with Web3 that I can't do or have trouble doing any other way?

yesbut 4y ago
With Web3 you get the benefit of knowing that nobody will ever view your content again.
juunpp 4y ago
A good question indeed.
jeroenhd 4y ago
One thing cryptography solves in web3 that I haven't seen any recent alternatives for is decentralised identity. You don't need blockchains and other such cruft for a simple signature system, but there's nothing on the web that actually makes use of such a system except for some government systems or intranets. Currently, every website asks for an email address and a username, but for most people that email address can easily be taken from them. This is especially bad for services that work with "magic links". WebAuthn and now FIDO2 may soon fix this problem, tieing your base identity to a cryptographic key, either in hardware or software, with email as a mere recovery option if the worst were to happen. As for an answer to your question: use the core protocol to generate speculative value through hype and pyramid schemes and cash out big time in a bigger-sucker scheme before you're found out.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  Didn't know PGP created in the 90s was part of web3 even though web2 wasn't coined till the 2000s. Nobody uses PGP because it's a pain in the ass - was back then and still is today. Decentralization is a solution looking for a problem.
sneak 4y ago
Distributed, trustless consensus. This allows for a protocol-issued currency that is censorship resistant without a centralized issuing authority. Perhaps you aren’t interested in that; that’s okay. It’s the main thing that was made possible by this invention that was not possible before.

yesbut 4y ago

With Web3 you get the benefit of knowing that nobody will ever view your content again.

juunpp 4y ago

A good question indeed.

jeroenhd 4y ago

One thing cryptography solves in web3 that I haven't seen any recent alternatives for is decentralised identity. You don't need blockchains and other such cruft for a simple signature system, but there's nothing on the web that actually makes use of such a system except for some government systems or intranets. Currently, every website asks for an email address and a username, but for most people that email address can easily be taken from them. This is especially bad for services that work with "magic links". WebAuthn and now FIDO2 may soon fix this problem, tieing your base identity to a cryptographic key, either in hardware or software, with email as a mere recovery option if the worst were to happen. As for an answer to your question: use the core protocol to generate speculative value through hype and pyramid schemes and cash out big time in a bigger-sucker scheme before you're found out.

trinovantes 4y ago
Didn't know PGP created in the 90s was part of web3 even though web2 wasn't coined till the 2000s. Nobody uses PGP because it's a pain in the ass - was back then and still is today. Decentralization is a solution looking for a problem.

sneak 4y ago

Distributed, trustless consensus. This allows for a protocol-issued currency that is censorship resistant without a centralized issuing authority. Perhaps you aren’t interested in that; that’s okay. It’s the main thing that was made possible by this invention that was not possible before.