I think I might have missed what this post was trying to say. It seemed very scattered, and having read it all I still don't know what Web3 is. But presumably it's some sort of network built on a...
I think I might have missed what this post was trying to say. It seemed very scattered, and having read it all I still don't know what Web3 is. But presumably it's some sort of network built on a blockchain, and the cryptocurrency people are really into it.
As a result of the above, my immediate reaction is to be opposed, if only due to negative association with those groups. However the idea of an immutable, write-only internet does seem interesting. Plenty of new problems are created, but it also solves some old ones like link rot. But then again, I'm completely speculating on something that only five minutes ago did I learn existed (or may one day exist).
Hmm, I must be out of the loop - I'd never heard of Web3 before this week, assuming it has nothing to do with Web 3.0 (web applications and the semantic web). The immutable, write-only internet...
Hmm, I must be out of the loop - I'd never heard of Web3 before this week, assuming it has nothing to do with Web 3.0 (web applications and the semantic web).
The immutable, write-only internet already exists as IPFS (or Freenet, or GNUNet, or ZeroNet, or DAT, or ...), and it doesn't have anything to do with blockchain - just torrent protocols. (well, that's not quite true - there's optional layers that use blockchain to replace domain name registrars, which I think is one of the few good applications of it).
Not using blockchain also makes the deletion brought up in the article easier - if content is just distributed across nodes, instead of on a blockchain, the nodes can choose to stop seeding it at any time (whether by a deletion request from the user or someone else). Since nodes ideally are just other people's browsers, they have full control over what content they choose to seed or not.
I'm missing the point that the author sees, and disagrees with.
I think I might have missed what this post was trying to say. It seemed very scattered, and having read it all I still don't know what Web3 is. But presumably it's some sort of network built on a blockchain, and the cryptocurrency people are really into it.
As a result of the above, my immediate reaction is to be opposed, if only due to negative association with those groups. However the idea of an immutable, write-only internet does seem interesting. Plenty of new problems are created, but it also solves some old ones like link rot. But then again, I'm completely speculating on something that only five minutes ago did I learn existed (or may one day exist).
Hmm, I must be out of the loop - I'd never heard of Web3 before this week, assuming it has nothing to do with Web 3.0 (web applications and the semantic web).
The immutable, write-only internet already exists as IPFS (or Freenet, or GNUNet, or ZeroNet, or DAT, or ...), and it doesn't have anything to do with blockchain - just torrent protocols. (well, that's not quite true - there's optional layers that use blockchain to replace domain name registrars, which I think is one of the few good applications of it).
Not using blockchain also makes the deletion brought up in the article easier - if content is just distributed across nodes, instead of on a blockchain, the nodes can choose to stop seeding it at any time (whether by a deletion request from the user or someone else). Since nodes ideally are just other people's browsers, they have full control over what content they choose to seed or not.
I'm missing the point that the author sees, and disagrees with.
"Web3" in this context is a very real concept, but it is, fortunately, confined entirely to the NFT crowd.