Hacker News Reader

Comment by sys_64738 | Hacker News Reader

What's a succinct definition for Web3/3.0/etc that I can tell my mother in law in 20 secs? I don't actually know what it's meant to be.

View on HN

Web3 services are 900 numbers. Every use of whatever service costs you money.

i feel your pain. i myself spent quite some time writing this blog and still ended up causing confusion. These terms are quite interchangeably used at various places by various people. But yeah keep an eye on this thread and you might just find some right & easy definitions. good luck!

You own your identity instead of Google, Facebook, and Apple.

I do that right now without any web3 stuff.

Owning your digital identity instead of renting it.

That’s been true of the web since day one. It would be more interesting to look at why most users have chosen not to do that despite having had the option, because the same forces are still present.

That doesn't mean anything.

Web3 based apps where a company like Facebook or Instagram can't delete your content just because it might contain a nipple.

It’s amazing how this description is entirely unrelated to the reality of the so-called web3. Not just “we’re still working out some of the details,” but literally none of it exists.

It’s like you’re promised a grand night at the opera and the bus takes you to a roach-infested casino. “Music? We don’t need it, the slot machines make enough sound. Now are you going to buy some tokens?”

Entirely this. And when it comes time to show success stories, they co-opt other decentralized tech like IPFS or DID. None of that needs a blockchain to operate and does just fine without implementing one. Web3 is truly DOA.

Again, web3 isn't just blockchains.

IPFS is a fundamental web3 tech since it's inception, even it's creators from Protocol Labs say so. Just because you like it more than blockchains doesn't mean it's not part of web3.

IOTA uses hashgraphs.

ArWeave uses blockweaves.

IPFS uses DAG.

And let’s not forget SMTP which is a core part of web3 because it’s a decentralized protocol after all. What amazing foresight they had in 1980 to build a web3 protocol before web1 even existed!

Don't forget HTTP, the original distributed protocol. Did we just wormhole to Web3 from Web1?

I get your point.

But, SMTP, just like Mastodon, isn't decentralized, it's just distributed.

Sorry, but Web3 can't simply adopt whatever definition is convenient for the present arguement (no 'Metaverse' moment for you). IPFS can adopt whatever identity it wants, but simply wanting to usurp HTTP doesn't make it "Web3 tech since it's inception". It sounds like they're doing a great job driving the project into irrelevance, for whatever that's worth.

I don't think your definition of Web3 is generally agreeable.

To me it seems that most critics have the impression that web3 is blockchains, and the moment someone says it isn't, they get mad because they arguments break down.

I was on web3 conferences and met all the creators of these technologies that consider themselves web3 but aren't considered web3 by critics of web3.

What should I make of it?

It’s pretty simple. In the public’s mind, the definition of “web3” has become: “First you must send us money for our crypto-token to do anything on our platform.”

If the creators of non-cryptocurrency projects don’t like that definition, maybe they should be angry at the crypto grifters and make a clean break from them? But I suppose they’re not going to do that because they also want to get rich from retail investors buying their token one day.

ArDrive, Lens Protocol, Huddle01, Radicle, Farcaster... it's all out there.

This seems like rhetoric. Have you tried looking?

Counterexamples: lens.xyz, farcaster.xyz, urbit.org

You can't say something that's generally beloved like Urbit!

By the logic of web3 critics, everything they consider 'good' isn't part of web3.

Is this sarcasm? Urbit is one of the most obfuscated and bizarre software projects in history. It makes TempleOS look like a model of clarity and common sense.

If Urbit is now a flag-bearer for web3, I don’t think the aforementioned mother-in-law will have to worry about trying to understand this stuff during her lifetime.

Interesting!

Didn't know that. I just read that some people here were like "I really wanna try Urbit".

You moved the goalposts a fair amount between

> Not just “we’re still working out some of the details,” but literally none of it exists.

and

> flag-bearer for web3

These are projects that are attempting solutions. I wasn’t claiming they work, but they’re figuring things out and seeing what needs to be rebuilt to get a working social model on top of web3.

A content service that anyone can post to and no one can delete from. Sounds great.

Someone posts child porn. Now everyone hosting that decentralized data is literally distributing child porn, and they can't stop without deleting the service from their device.

Some people are thinking that maintaining a safe haven for child pornographers is a small price to pay for absolute digital freedom. They are the reason that things like this will never work.

Literally the reason I abandoned Freenet shortly after I started playing around with it in like...2010 I think?

It feels like it was created for the purpose of distributing CSAM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com