3 ms·

Again, web3 isn't just blockchains. IPFS is a fundamental web3 tech since it's inception, even it's creators from Protocol Labs say so. Just because you like i

by k__ 4y ago

Again, web3 isn't just blockchains. IPFS is a fundamental web3 tech since it's inception, even it's creators from Protocol Labs say so. Just because you like it more than blockchains doesn't mean it's not part of web3. IOTA uses hashgraphs. ArWeave uses blockweaves. IPFS uses DAG.

pavlov 4y ago
And let’s not forget SMTP which is a core part of web3 because it’s a decentralized protocol after all. What amazing foresight they had in 1980 to build a web3 protocol before web1 even existed!
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Don't forget HTTP, the original distributed protocol. Did we just wormhole to Web3 from Web1?
- k__ 4y ago
  I get your point. But, SMTP, just like Mastodon, isn't decentralized, it's just distributed.
smoldesu 4y ago
Sorry, but Web3 can't simply adopt whatever definition is convenient for the present arguement (no 'Metaverse' moment for you). IPFS can adopt whatever identity it wants, but simply wanting to usurp HTTP doesn't make it "Web3 tech since it's inception". It sounds like they're doing a great job driving the project into irrelevance, for whatever that's worth. I don't think your definition of Web3 is generally agreeable.
- k__ 4y ago
  To me it seems that most critics have the impression that web3 is blockchains, and the moment someone says it isn't, they get mad because they arguments break down. I was on web3 conferences and met all the creators of these technologies that consider themselves web3 but aren't considered web3 by critics of web3. What should I make of it?
  - pavlov 4y ago
    It’s pretty simple. In the public’s mind, the definition of “web3” has become: “First you must send us money for our crypto-token to do anything on our platform.” If the creators of non-cryptocurrency projects don’t like that definition, maybe they should be angry at the crypto grifters and make a clean break from them? But I suppose they’re not going to do that because they also want to get rich from retail investors buying their token one day.

by k__ 4y ago

pavlov 4y ago

And let’s not forget SMTP which is a core part of web3 because it’s a decentralized protocol after all. What amazing foresight they had in 1980 to build a web3 protocol before web1 even existed!

smoldesu 4y ago
Don't forget HTTP, the original distributed protocol. Did we just wormhole to Web3 from Web1?
k__ 4y ago
I get your point. But, SMTP, just like Mastodon, isn't decentralized, it's just distributed.

smoldesu 4y ago

Sorry, but Web3 can't simply adopt whatever definition is convenient for the present arguement (no 'Metaverse' moment for you). IPFS can adopt whatever identity it wants, but simply wanting to usurp HTTP doesn't make it "Web3 tech since it's inception". It sounds like they're doing a great job driving the project into irrelevance, for whatever that's worth. I don't think your definition of Web3 is generally agreeable.

k__ 4y ago
To me it seems that most critics have the impression that web3 is blockchains, and the moment someone says it isn't, they get mad because they arguments break down. I was on web3 conferences and met all the creators of these technologies that consider themselves web3 but aren't considered web3 by critics of web3. What should I make of it?
- pavlov 4y ago
  It’s pretty simple. In the public’s mind, the definition of “web3” has become: “First you must send us money for our crypto-token to do anything on our platform.” If the creators of non-cryptocurrency projects don’t like that definition, maybe they should be angry at the crypto grifters and make a clean break from them? But I suppose they’re not going to do that because they also want to get rich from retail investors buying their token one day.