The problem I have with articles like these is that my definition of Web3 is quite a bit different. I tend to lump "crypto" more with NFTs, wild speculation, scams, heavily VC backed "decentralized" tokens, etc. But on the other hand, I want social networks not owned by businesses, I want other major utilities also not owned by major companies (I think gmail is used for 8bn addresses). I think the fediverse is nice start, but still not decentralized enough (a single mastadon server admin can kill it anytime they want or change the rules). In my opinion the definition of web3 is:"Web3 represents a fundamental evolution of the internet built upon blockchain architectures. Moving from centralized control and capitalization to a decentralized network where the capital is distributed between the operators and consumers."
I feel like the definition of Web3 is hijacked by pundits. Probably because it has become yet another buzzword and being so tightly associated with Crypto maybe has it tainted forever?
rcoder|3 years ago
The difference between the two isn't necessarily technical; rather it's the requirement that you "join the crypto economy" and start buying up whatever shitcoin -- or CDS-style derivative of multiple coins -- is being used for that one website...and somehow that means "SSO is easy now!" and "anyone can make micropayments anywhere!" etc., etc.
The latter only makes sense in a world of free money from VCs that lets people spend tens of millions of dollars building a *login form* that they charge other websites to use. Their business model seemingly ignores the fact that no serious enterprise[^1] is going to run their internal authN/Z and IdM on a global blockchain.
[^1]: actually, I'm sure several companies have/will tried this, and equally certain the net result was a flaky service that was effectively just querying a Postgres table that cached the on-chain identity for a user and checking their presented token against that. I.e., yet another Postgres instance masquerading as "web3 infrastructure".
rpgbr|3 years ago
The truth is: you don't need crypto stuff to have a decentralized internet, as ActivityPub is handsomely showing and, let's be real here, the web itself is showing for the last decades.
I'm still to see a Web3 business that doesn't smell, looks, and behaves like it's a grift.
627467|3 years ago
Blockstacks was initially release with "decentralized" storage that allows me to interact with dapps that would use that storage to hold my data. To me that was and still is the pattern of what I consider "web3".
UncleMeat|3 years ago
danaris|3 years ago
It's extremely useful to have a term like "Web3" to use as a unifying force within such an effort, as well as a way to describe it to people outside, and I don't see a better one for such a decentralization right now.
simongray|3 years ago
coldpie|3 years ago