I just don't understand Web3 the more I think about it.
Can someone explain the incentive/reasoning for Web3 (specifically dapps)? What are the actual benefits of making an decentralized app using the block chain versus a large cloud network such as AWS?
Also apps become decentralized, does that mean corporations lose their stake in apps? Do the apps become autonomous/self-sufficient? If so, isn't that the same thing as a public stock exchange (investors become partial owners)?
I've been a very curious person from the get go. I love learning how new systems are developed, what are the points of failure that need addressing, and what are the growth leading features.
It all boils down to the principle of Robustness of systems. Have a single point of failure (if all your cloud services are on AWS, if it ever goes down, your business goes with it).
So how do we improve our systems beyond that point?
We can divide among several cloud services, using Oracle Cloud, Azure, Google cloud, so that if one service goes down, you can still recover and offer your products).
Then there's the next level of paranoia on top of it. What if every service goes down? Or all of them become a mafia and just raise prices beyond what's profitable to my business?
That's where DApps have an edge, it runs on the internet and on each computer where the app is installed, the only way for the service to completely be shut down is if the internet itself gets shutdown (or energy, whenever there's a civil war and all that).
web3 is just about creating services that are not controlled by central authorities because centralization is most of the time bad, thats it. blockchain is one way of achieving that decentralization and it is really helpful in the case of private chains with big companies not wanting to pay huge amount of money to a middleman, when it comes to public chains we got cryptocurencies and thats where it is unstable and its filled with a lot of subjective premises.
As far as I am concerned, web3, cryptocurrencies and NFTs are just a pyramid scheme scam, and the crypto-based implementation of blockchains is a convoluted, wasteful solution to a problem no one has. It's all just a grift. So there's really nothing to understand about it. It will crash and fade away into obscurity. And if it doesn't then I truly lose all hope for humanity.
Ironically, it’s a beautiful analogy… I can certainly understand why many people are justifiably (although perhaps a bit self-righteously) repulsed by the straw man they’ve built of web 3.
But because a salesman doesn’t understand his own snake oil doesn’t make it not valuable.
“web 3” is a concept, not a specification or initiative. So, why not also explore its merit?
Isn’t there, tho? Seems you accept the notion that “web 3” is conceptual… so, is it that it is without merit - for any use case whatsoever - or that you’re without sufficient imagination? 🤷♂️
The only merit web 3 has as a concept is of purely academic nature. It's an interesting concept to think about, but at the end of the day, the downsides make it mostly useless for any real world applications, and the few cases where the unique properties of a public append-only ledger would outweigh its deficits are way too few to reasonably justify migrating the entire web to interact with and support this niche technology.
migrating the web? perhaps i’m missing the point, but tbh i’m not really seeing one…
what i’m reading - “web 3 = doo doo bc deficits.” what merits characterize its “purely academic” nature? which deficits iyo outweigh these merits?
you haven’t presented any specific deficiencies - could you? imho, it’s too notional a concept to discard solely based on nameless straw men “deficiencies.”
shouldn’t we also discount web 2 because it required a “complete migration” to new technologies? or are we cool with all that, since it’s proven useful in its application.
like web 2.0 and web 1 before that, web 3 is an idea, not a specification. 🤷♂️ i’m not saying you’re wrong, by any means… but parroting back vague reddit garbo isn’t very productive.
You don't make a decentralized app if your use-case works with an AWS server. The only valid reason to make a decentralized app is because you couldn't implement that use-case without a blockchain.
Yes, this limits the use-cases for web3 considerably.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I just don't understand Web3 the more I think about it.
Can someone explain the incentive/reasoning for Web3 (specifically dapps)? What are the actual benefits of making an decentralized app using the block chain versus a large cloud network such as AWS?
Also apps become decentralized, does that mean corporations lose their stake in apps? Do the apps become autonomous/self-sufficient? If so, isn't that the same thing as a public stock exchange (investors become partial owners)?
it is just buzzwords
It all boils down to the principle of Robustness of systems. Have a single point of failure (if all your cloud services are on AWS, if it ever goes down, your business goes with it).
So how do we improve our systems beyond that point?
We can divide among several cloud services, using Oracle Cloud, Azure, Google cloud, so that if one service goes down, you can still recover and offer your products).
Then there's the next level of paranoia on top of it. What if every service goes down? Or all of them become a mafia and just raise prices beyond what's profitable to my business?
That's where DApps have an edge, it runs on the internet and on each computer where the app is installed, the only way for the service to completely be shut down is if the internet itself gets shutdown (or energy, whenever there's a civil war and all that).
web3 is just about creating services that are not controlled by central authorities because centralization is most of the time bad, thats it. blockchain is one way of achieving that decentralization and it is really helpful in the case of private chains with big companies not wanting to pay huge amount of money to a middleman, when it comes to public chains we got cryptocurencies and thats where it is unstable and its filled with a lot of subjective premises.
As far as I am concerned, web3, cryptocurrencies and NFTs are just a pyramid scheme scam, and the crypto-based implementation of blockchains is a convoluted, wasteful solution to a problem no one has. It's all just a grift. So there's really nothing to understand about it. It will crash and fade away into obscurity. And if it doesn't then I truly lose all hope for humanity.
Yep. It's snake oil, except the salesman doesn't even know what problem it solves, he just tells you it's "good", because it comes from magic snakes.
Ironically, it’s a beautiful analogy… I can certainly understand why many people are justifiably (although perhaps a bit self-righteously) repulsed by the straw man they’ve built of web 3.
But because a salesman doesn’t understand his own snake oil doesn’t make it not valuable.“web 3” is a concept, not a specification or initiative. So, why not also explore its merit?
Because there is no merit.
Isn’t there, tho? Seems you accept the notion that “web 3” is conceptual… so, is it that it is without merit - for any use case whatsoever - or that you’re without sufficient imagination? 🤷♂️
The only merit web 3 has as a concept is of purely academic nature. It's an interesting concept to think about, but at the end of the day, the downsides make it mostly useless for any real world applications, and the few cases where the unique properties of a public append-only ledger would outweigh its deficits are way too few to reasonably justify migrating the entire web to interact with and support this niche technology.
migrating the web? perhaps i’m missing the point, but tbh i’m not really seeing one…
what i’m reading - “web 3 = doo doo bc deficits.” what merits characterize its “purely academic” nature? which deficits iyo outweigh these merits?
you haven’t presented any specific deficiencies - could you? imho, it’s too notional a concept to discard solely based on nameless straw men “deficiencies.”
shouldn’t we also discount web 2 because it required a “complete migration” to new technologies? or are we cool with all that, since it’s proven useful in its application.
like web 2.0 and web 1 before that, web 3 is an idea, not a specification. 🤷♂️ i’m not saying you’re wrong, by any means… but parroting back vague reddit garbo isn’t very productive.
I think my point is quite clear:
So in conclusion: Web 3 is overhyped garbage snake oil that won't solve anything
You don't make a decentralized app if your use-case works with an AWS server. The only valid reason to make a decentralized app is because you couldn't implement that use-case without a blockchain.
Yes, this limits the use-cases for web3 considerably.