Yes. Peer-to-peer networks have existed long before Web3 ever became a thing. Bittorrent worked fine without a blockchain. IPFS works fine without a blockchain. Soulseek and Limewire didn't need blockchains, same as Napster.
The idea of digital currency is definitely geek pornography, but it's a much more complicated issue in the real world. All signs seem to indicate that the further a protocol distances itself from money, the better chance it has at succeeding in the long-term.
Fine, but for IPFS you need a normal domain name. Oops, now you're centralized/cancellable again.
Every single person who thinks blockchain = database just doesn't understand centralization vs decentralization, and trust vs trustless. A database is run by a central authority.
Huh? Who told you that? Sure, if you are lazy enough to rely on a translator (which exists for Tor and IPFS), domain names would be in the picture, but you could use clients... that do that directly.
1. The most immediate problem is going to be scaling. Since we can't rely on centralized peers (or even federated trackers like on Bittorrent), our ledger has to be both distributed and operate with relatively low block times. This introduces a problem: anyone who wants a "complete" ledger needs to trace their domain back through the history of the blockchain. This would require a local copy of the ledger on your client (extremely large), or server-side domain resolution (unbelievably slow, even for a single user). The internet as we know it simply wouldn't fit on a Blockchain.
2. Let's pretend like that isn't an issue though, and you only need to serve a few dozen sites to a few dozen users (the fate of many such crypto projects). Now we get to the exciting stuff; decentralized domain markets! I'm assuming this is where people step in to suggest smart contracts and NFTs get used, but there's a bigger problem on the horizon; lack of regulation. Since DNS is a centralized server, it can determine when abusive transactions are conducted and rectify them. If Microsoft decided to buy every domain NFT overnight, nobody could stop them. Now Microsoft owns your "decentralized" internet! Yippee!
3. Even though the mental gymnastics are getting exhausting, let's assume one more time that this project has perfectly worked out every social engineering kink and logical exploit in their market system.
...then what? Domain owners can now be openly hunted by observing the wallet their domain name lives in. Domains can be stolen like those poor Bored Apes. Companies can no longer take solace in a B2B transaction with their DNS provider, since that doesn't determine the ownership of their domain anymore. The logic of domains breaks down past this point, you may as well just use unique identifiers, IP addresses or hashes by now. The idea of a web as we know it wouldn't exist in this reality. It would be a lawless no-man's land, a reflection of the catatonic crypto landscape as it exists currently.
I don't see that at all. What I see are a bunch of predatory projects trying to make a bunch of money before the music stops.
If a particular set of ideals are being used in marketing for only one space, that space is going to attract people who care about those ideals. Currently I see those people flocking to Web3, if there's an alternative I'd be interested to hear about it.
Amway, Avon, and door-to-door knife sales were three that I recall.
Freenet is decentralized and so far is unstoppable. You probably would not like 80% of information that’s being exchanged there… but that’s actually a sign of quality, if you think about it.
Speaking of which , if I say write an anti-Putin manifesto on Web3 - will Putin’s thugs be able to stop me digitally or biologically? What are my protections?
Regarding your protections - I'd say anonymity is still the #1 protection in most online environments. Of course, adding money adds 'skin in the game', but you have a lot more control over how much of your identity you want to risk on any one manifesto.
It's simple, and I don't know why people are confused. New technology (value-neutral) comes around that promises decentralization. Grifters come into the space with a bunch of centralized garbage (stablecoins, CEX, etc). And "idiots" (I want to be respectful, but it's hard to find a better word) throw away the technology along with the bathwater. Result: enjoy CBDCs and the government being able to institute transaction taxes, implement negative interest rates, and freeze your bank account at will. Good thing you didn't get scammed!
SideShift.ai for example or Bisq.
Check out https://kycnot.me/
I don't see that as the underlying desire for Web3. Not in the slightest.
In a democracy people maintain a commons. Web3 is the opposite, withdrawal from the commons, usually to ignore democratic authority or the law to begin with.
[0] Heavy downvoting of the parent, + three replies all saying "don't see it". A decent place to start: https://vitalik.ca/index.html