Re: Forget technology
> 'TL:DR' blimey, you can talk, literally.
I think you've missed the point of that line...
I wasn't saying yours was too long, I was providing a TL:DR for mine, it's not an uncommon thing to do.
Normally, if someone's complaining yours is TL, then the TL:DR will be somewhere near the top of their response, not after they've been responding to points you've raised.
> Not everything is hype. Good things get overhyped but they are still good.
True, but good things also get missed amongst the hype. Given most of Web3 currently appears to be aspiration and hype, it doesn't bode well for any actual innovators lost in amongst the fog.
> Web3 is more than just crypto so you need to expand your Google searching a bit.
Funny, everything I've read says that blockchain is key to the decentralization that Web3 aims for. Blockchain relies on crypto (as in proper crypto, not digital dollars).
Of course, cryptocurrency also seems to be baked into it, even down to the idea that your reward comes in the form of a crypto-token.
It's a bit like saying that there's more to the Internet than TCP/IP - it's true, but it's pretty damn important all the same.
> Give it a go one day before you sit ringside booing the boxers claiming to be able to do better.
I think you need to check your reading comprehension - what I said was that crypto/web3 brings no benefit vs other existing solutions. I didn't claim the other solutions were better, just that a crypto-web3 is no better.
> Web3 will come whether you like it or not.
I'm sure it will, that doesn't mean it'll be good, or even an improvement. At the moment, though, there doesn't seem to be much technical substance to it.
It's not just the technicals either - Web3 "will" save us from the Web2 overlords (the distribution channels/platforms - i.e. YT, Facebook etc). Except... how are creators going to attract users? Ultimately, in the Web3 utopia, we may well end up with those same platforms dominating, just with blockchain mixed in - and that's assuming there's some kind of cutover. In reality, users will probably stay within the web2 channels, and web3 only creators will see very little.
I'm more than happy to get excited about Web3 when there's an actually viable plan involved rather than smoke and magic.
As an easy example, here's
- a Twitter thread in favour of Web3: https://twitter.com/cdixon/status/1442201621266534402
- Ethereum's page on Web3: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/web2-vs-web3/
- a post not in favour: https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/web3-bullshit.html
Note that complete lack of technical arguments/detail in the "pro" examples. They're all "this'll be better", but it's all entirely surface level. Meanwhile, "Web3 is bullshit" advances *actual* technical arguments.
You don't need to be "better" to gain adoption - sometimes the worst solution wins. What's often needed where users are concerned is convenience - Web3 has to fight against the convenience of apathy (users already in their facebook bubble, for example). But, utility is also important.
Something crypto-currency supporters seem to miss is that some of the "faults" they point to in the fiat system is actually seen as a benefit.
An easy example is the idea that there's no way to reverse a transaction:
- to cryptofolk this is good, it means there's no central authority dictating movement of your money etc
- the rest of the world looks at how many chargebacks are issued *every single day*, the protections we get from s31 etc as well as the protection we get from the bank in some circumstances
It's hard to believe that the same naivety isn't going to surface in Web3, existing as it does as a bunch of "if we say we'll build it, someone'll figure out how to"
Biting the hand that feeds IT
