A way better web3 take was posted earlier today. This is just hyperbole, some sort of self-hating tech worker thing, and bad thinking. Honestly it’s fantastic to compare the two and see just how useless this blog post is. The better take <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845208" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845208</a>
> Bitcoin moved from “darkweb drug money” to an institution-grade store of value asset in the space of a decade without a central authority to guide it.<p>"Institution-grade store of value?" Maybe if you mean an asylum.
I just don’t understand why is it called “web3” when it’s emphatically <i>not a part of world wide web</i>.<p>Web 2.0 was. Web 2.0 is an extension of the web.<p>Original Web 3.0 was some kind of semantic web vaporware with XML or something, but it was still strongly part of world wide web.<p>“web 3” is just not part of world wide web.<p>But whatever, I just substitute “web3” for “blockchain and cryptocurrency” and that’s it
I believe in decentralized web, but I don't believe in tokenization of apps. I think the tokenization aspect is throwing off everyone, and allowing greed to overpower innovation. It's possible to build decentralized apps and use Bitcoin on Lightning Network as a incentive/payment/consensus mechanism if needed. There's no need for someone to "own" the app or protocol. This model can be seen as an alternative to the VC and cryptobro-driven Web3, which Cobie is talking about. See Sphinx Chat [0] or Impervious [1] for example.<p>(before anyone says that Bitcoin doesn't scale to that, yes it does to millions of transactions per second with Lightning Network)<p>[0] <a href="https://sphinx.chat" rel="nofollow">https://sphinx.chat</a>
[1] <a href="https://www.impervious.ai" rel="nofollow">https://www.impervious.ai</a>
I remember when bitcoin first became super mainstream popular in 2016ish. I had read the shatoshi white paper in 2011 so I already understood exactly what bitcoin was and the implications of it. And I will never forget in 2016 seeing the sky go black with a plague of misinformation. It’s really striking because after the plague had descended, I saw that it would have been very very difficult for a younger person to find a straightforward answer to what exactly bitcoin was. And the average joe? Literally every person seemed to have their own explanation of what bitcoin was, all equally wrong. With web3 there doesn’t even seem to be a white paper.
Past comments: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29785021" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29785021</a>
The title is actually "Wtf is web3".<p>Quick PSA for anyone who likes using the word "exist(s)" or "there are/is" indiscriminately. In English, use like this serves as shorthand or as a recommendation about how we should better use language.<p>If you position is that something doesn't exist—whatever that means—then you don't understand your own position enough to write about it.
The most significant improvement to the web will be to enable active participation of laypersons. On their own behalf, without a gatekeeper.<p>But it takes guts for experts to advocate such, as it shrinks their importance.<p>It is possible, plug: I have a POC at <a href="https://demo.mro.name/shaarligo/" rel="nofollow">https://demo.mro.name/shaarligo/</a>
What especially doesn't exist is Web "3.0". What's next, 3.1 LTS? 3.2.4 beta2? I wish people would stop abusing semantic versioning and tacking on a ".0" just because it looks funky cool to businessy types.
I'm really getting sick of all these vacuous articles about web3. The anti-web3 virtue signalling just as tiresome as the pro-web3 puffery. Even a repost of a 20 year old PG essay or peter norvig's spell checker would be better than this. Something with some technical meat to it, not just a pile of bones.