Follow

I'm surprised that this article doesn't really tackle the elephants in the room:

- The "decentralized" Web 3.0 is actually already much more centralized than the current Web. You want to buy/sell an NTF? Go to OpenSea. You want to build an app that interacts with a Blockchain? There's only Infura and Alchemy for that. Authentication over wallet? Sure, MetaMask does it. These four actors have basically a complete monopoly on the . At a level that is even greater than the control exerted by Google or Facebook. Without a Blockchain, you can't do anything with a dApp. You can't even test your app - even testing and debugging needs to happen in somebody else's walled garden. In order to push anything to a Blockchain, you either run your own mining node (which either requires a lot of money, a lot of computing power, or both), or you delegate access to one of the gatekeepers. Can you imagine a world where the only way to push new records to a Postgres db is either to invest a lot into a mining node, or use a proprietary API provided by Google?

- The proof-of-work that powers Bitcoin (and most of today's Blockchains) is a criminal environmental disaster, period. Its throughput is laughable, even when compared to even the dumbest LAMP-based web application running on a Raspberry Pi, and the energy it burns to add a new block (just to solve a stupid numeric puzzle that isn't useful to anyone) should be enough to consider mining as a criminal activity against the whole planet. And its proposed alternative (proof-of-stake) has never been truly experimented on a large scale and, once it does, if it works, it will simply heavily centralize the Web 3.0. In order to get a stake on a Blockchain, you'll need to invest money. And a lot of it (Ethereum is talking about something in the order of the tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars). Do the supporters of Web3 and the proof-of-stake as the future know that they are simply laying the foundation for the next oligarchs of the web, that are likely to be much more powerful than today's because the barriers between users/developers and the actual infrastructure are even higher than today's?

If you want a world, just pick any of the open-source projects out there that provides a way to federate with other services, run your own freaking server like it's 1999, and you're good to go.

You don't need NFT and crypto scam to build a decentralized internet. Nor you need mining algorithms that burn as much energy as the Netherlands just to push 0.001% of the transactions currently processed by Visa/Mastercard for a tiny fraction of that energy. Nor you need to have new gatekeepers. Nor you need to build a new oligarchy were only those who can afford to pay $100,000 can afford a stake on a Blockchain.

It's time for this Web 3.0 degenerated scammy bubble to burn in a ball of fire and get forever out of our sight.

hackernoon.com/a-decentralized

For those interested in digging a bit deeper: this is an article that I wrote a while ago going in detail of why the Web 3.0 is nothing but a perverse bubble of scammers.

blog.fabiomanganiello.com/arti

@blacklight >If you want a #decentralized world, just pick any of the open-source projects out there that provides a way to federate with other services, run your own freaking server like it's 1999, and you're good to go.

💯 this absolutely

@blacklight the fediverse today reminds me more of 1989 than 1999. In 1999 if you wanted to socialize online, you had an AOL or CompuServe account. In 1989 you dialed into the BBS run by the SysOp you ran into at Radio Shack. And that BBS was a thriving community of local folks, but federated into FidoNet or similar networks. There were enough sysops in every area code that there truly was a BBS for everybody.

@blacklight the big thing we did NOT have abundantly in 1989 was open source. Best most of us could score was “freeware”.

@magnus919 @blacklight

this timescale does depend on whether you were in USA or not; in Europe we didn't have unmetered local phone calls ,fewer family houses had a second phone line so modem and Internet usage didn't really take off until late 90s/early 2000s when ADSL and early DOCSIS broadband started to be deployed..

@blacklight
Web 3.0 is a marketing scheme by VC firms who have put billions into the dumbest ideas and want a return on their investment.

As greed makes people dumb, they may even succeed in that 🤷

I liked how moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-firs showed how dumb many of those things are (and that it is centralized AF).
Putting a URL on the blockchain to point to an 'asset'. If you don't see how stupid that 'solution' is, then you deserve to loose your money. Especially VCs.

@FreePietje I had read about the "sh*t emoji" guy. And I'm surprised that nobody thought of something like this before - in a business model where people "buy" a public URL on my web server, that would be the first thing I would do.

I had a few discussions in these months of how this "bubble" will burst. And I tend to agree with you: people who have invested a lot of money into something would do *anything* to make that thing successful. Even when it's against everyone else's interests, even when it's evident that it doesn't solve any problems, they'd rather throw some smoke into people's eyes rather than admitting that they've put their money into a Ponzi scheme.

So I'm really not sure anymore of how to speed up the burst for this bubble. People who have invested a lot of money into something are impermeable to rational arguments anyway.

@blacklight
"I'm surprised that nobody thought of something like this before"

That's why I call the Ethereum people 'script kiddies', because they fail to see such simple errors which 'even' I can see ... over and over again.

That's why I thought it was hilarious that a guy who (obviously (to me)) is smart, manages to figure that out AND made it blindly obvious for everyone to see in a funny way.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

A platform about automation, software architecture, data science and tech.