I thought this would be about a bigger and more obvious problem with web3, namely that by default all traffic going through MetaMask runs through Infura and hence through Consensys's servers. If you think you're getting privacy or resilience because you're interacting with a DApp, think again. All your transactions are going through a single organization, which might have logs linking the IP, your ETH address, the smart contract address, and timestamp, and if it goes down web3 won't work for a significant number of users. [It is possible to configure MetaMask to use a different gateway, but how many users fiddle with the defaults or even know what a web3 gateway is?]<p>Ethereum as a whole and the raw smart contracts of most DApps actually are decentralized, but there are SPOFs in the UI, name service, and transaction gateway. If you aren't willing to run your own geth instance and understand Solidity/EVM, it's not really decentralized <i>for you</i>.
I've been kicking around the Ethereum community since the early days, and what people were calling "web3" back then is not what we have now. The original idea was for everything to be hosted on IPFS or Swarm[1]. The latter was to be an Ethereum-native protocol similar to IPFS; it turned out to be harder than expected and hasn't gotten traction so far but it's still an active project. One of its goals was to enable payments for keeping files available.<p>Still, decentralized naming and digital signatures go a long way towards turning p2p filesharing into something more. I think it'll all come together eventually.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.ethswarm.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ethswarm.org/</a>
> A lot of the reason why I detest NFTs in particular is because I detest the concept of artificial scarcity, something that has been plauging the digital world long before the invention of NFTs<p>I agree with this, artificial scarcity is a lousy way to get anything done. The end-game of economics ought to be to eliminate scarcity, artificial or otherwise. But if the alternative to NFT's is the status quo, then you're choosing between a system where only the privileged get to set up artificial scarcity games (usually there are lawyers...) versus one where anyone can do so. It still sucks, but it sucks <i>less</i>.<p>> Naturally, the exploitation of natural resources and absurd energy demands solely to enforce the value of made up internet items would be the endgame [of NFTs].<p>I think that the endgame is to exchange NFTs as proofs of contribution to the public good. I minted this NFT by sequestering a kilogram of carbon, by filling this pothole, by serving in a jury, that sort of thing. As it stands it's not really clear why I should accept a dollar from a stranger--for all I know, they made that dollar by making the world worse. Why should I participate in a scheme that enables them to continue doing so? But with NFT's I can look at the circumstances of its minting and decide for myself whether that's the kind of thing I want to see more of.
I can't stand anything about a "Web3" that is not inclusive of existing ecosystems using actual, working, standardized protocols like those adopted by the IndieWeb and Fediverse communities.<p>"A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory" as the adage goes coined by Elinor Ostrom (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Ostrom's_law)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Ostrom's_law)</a>.<p>You don't need blockchains to be decentralized. Continuing to dunk on "web3" over here: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Web3Skepticism/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Web3Skepticism/</a>
Web3 is about having your own private keys. It's not about decentralization, it's about having control over your digital identity. If I log into HN and make comments here, HN owns my identity. If I log into a web3 site and make comments there, I own the identity on that site.<p>Moving authentication to the user removes the need for 3rd party websites to store passwords. It eliminates the need to sign up for websites. You just give websites access to your identity. Decentralization is a feature of cryptocurrency.<p>Web3 is about owning your identity, which is enabled by people having their own keys.
As a rule, every decentralised system in computing eventually becomes centralised. This is usually because it is more efficient to employ a hierarchical structure when implementing some functions.<p>Crypto is just like every other system - ostensibly distributed but centralised in practice.<p>The great exception to this seems to be BitTorrent. It remains decentralised and I wonder - what is so special about BitTorrent that means it hasn’t been replaced by a hierarchical system? Is it just “piracy” or is there something deeper we can learn from it?
Confounding DAOs as web3 is a little odd. They may use web3 tooling...but obviously most are "DOs" (distributed organizations) today and they don't really comprise web3.<p>IPFS is a great example the author points to as to what I understand web3 infrastructure to be; it seems to be a very strong example of decentralization.
"Amazon's Server Outage Took Down a 'Decentralized' Crypto Exchange" => <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdnxy/amazons-server-outage-took-down-a-decentralized-crypto-exchange" rel="nofollow">https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdnxy/amazons-server-outage...</a>
I think of web3 in a different way than I see it commonly talked about. I think the idea behind the changes in the Internet that people identified as "Web 2.0" was that the Internet was opening up to more people with the creation of sites that allowed user participation. It was a recognition that although the early public Internet allowed anyone to participate, in reality the cost, effort, and know-how involved in setting up a website was a hurdle most people couldn't overcome. So with Web 2.0 the internet was opening up to more people. We <i>now</i> know that this led to a perverse centralization of power. Yes, more people could now participate, but mostly on a few corporate-controlled platforms.<p>Web 3.0 is supposed to be a continuation of the trend of making the Internet "of the people". Web 1.0 was open to anyone. Web 2.0 was more open. Web 3.0 will be even more open. (In theory.) Web 3.0 isn't about Reddit or the other sites this person mentions. It's about all the new technologies people are coming up with to enable participation on the Internet free from the control of a few centralized corporate platforms. Blockchain is a big part of that, and cryptocurrencies. But so is tildeverse and Mastodon and Gemini and all that stuff.<p>Also, it's not the case that ARPANET was designed to stay up "if the Soviets took down important cities or strategic datacenters". Bob Taylor, the man who literally made the decision to authorize and fund the ARPANET, has said so himself. "The creation of the ARPAnet was not motivated by considerations of war."
As a crypto and web3 fan I actually agree with the article but not with the title.<p>To me decentralization is a value. It's a goal, and yes, a goal that almost every web3 project falls short of in some way. But I think values are important. Values play a huge part in guiding human behavior. And the human side of web3 is MASSIVELY underrated in my opinion.<p>I don't think people realize that we can shape web3 by building up the right culture around it. By teaching people what things they should look out for. Because without that, they'll just be drawn in by blind profits and screwed over because we didn't tell them how to think about web3.<p>To a certain extent web3 critics are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are simultaneously criticizing web3 for valuing decentralization while also criticizing web3 for not being decentralized enough. It creates apathy around decentralization and other web3 ideas.<p>I think web3 critics would serve people better not by criticizing web3 but instead criticizing projects for not being web3 enough. What I don't think people on HN or Twitter understand is that right now web3 is a foundation. We can build technology and culture around it to help people.
You're probably right, but you're too late. "Decentralized" already made its way into the minds of the players. And decentralized is associated with "something good" and "something to throw money at because maybe it will make me rich". And those players will all lose while those at the top of the pyramids will all win and then you can say "I told you so" to all those greater fools, but they'll still say you were wrong, that you're not even a player, and so you know nothing. I wish I could convince them otherwise too, but it's too late for that.<p><i>A fool and his money...</i>. At this point, I'd rather just make them my fools - better mine than someone else's. Take their money first, <i>then</i> say "I told you so". Then they might start listening to you.
It's just a platform to build and offer financial services without having to ask anyone, or have ongoing overhead costs.<p>Some are calling it OpenFinance to step over the optional decentralization.<p>"Check out my OF" <i>penetrates</i> a much broader audience than "DeFi service"
Isn't decentralization just a definition of Web3? After web2 has been hijacked by a handful of companies, with associated surveillance, censorship and manipulation, people just want some freedom.
nfts are just as bad as copyrights. both require unnatural systems in order to exist. both attempt to reduce freedom of speech and the proliferation of ideas. both need to be removed.