There is the web3 and Web 3.0 (as a successor for Web 2.0), one more oriented to distributed and federated content, another with everything on top of a currency, so every stored bit costs some gas.
And although I don’t dislike the good parts of cryptocurrency, being the cryptography behind it and the potential of decentralized power behind it, I’m not too fond of the interests it brings. Since it’s designed from the core for monetary value, it attracts people aiming for the best Return on investment not caring for the environment (there is a debate about green energies by 2022).
I know that a Hobbyist net, an Indieweb, and a Hyper profitable net are going to be different between them, their core values are different, and there is a space for all of them.
I don’t think Web3 is going to be self-sustainable since there is no balance between losers and winners.
and the potential of decentralized power behind it
The problem though with Web 3.0 (if that’s the proper naming) is that is is NOT decentralised at all.
Is it “distributed”.
I really do not understand why we collectively keep pushing the hype of “decentralised” and confusing it with “distributed”. A Blcokchain (any really) is actually a centralised data structure comprised of a chain of hashes and some “data”. A Blockchain + “some fancy networking” (usually Byzantine fault tolerance networking (or some variant thereof) is just another type of “distributed networking” technology.
Then of course tack on top the details of the various cryptocurrencies and “proof of work” vs. “proof of stake”, “longest chain wins”, etc… (details).
Bottom line. Web 3.0 is NOT decentralized. It is distributed and any data you store on it is very much “centralised” on whatever network you decide to put it on (e.g: IPFS).
@prologic@twtxt.net Well, it should be decentralized, like in every computer having a copy of the whole blockchain (400 GB for Bitcoin up to 2022). Since that’s not feasible, now everything is semi-decentralized or fully centralized, and perhaps is not been distributed, if you consume the blockchain on the same APIs… ¯_(ツ)_/¯
So I agree with you.
What I think about those technologies is that version 1.0 is extremely inefficient (energy consumption, niche market), have horrible UX (like slow transactions, having to centralize the transactions to make them easier to use) and requires some early adopters willing to ignore the defects of the current solution.
So it’s a double edged sword to me. Yeah, changing the status quo, and using cool technology is appealing to scientists (AI/magical algorithms, is that you?), but the problems it actually creates are worth considering. It reminds me of a quote from Jurassic Park.
Maybe Web3.5 will fix some, maybe everything will disappear. Who knows?