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 #web3. 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 #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.

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

Follow

@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”.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastocafé

This is a mastodon instance for social justice activists, LGBTQIA+ people, and activists in general See the Goals and technical details, and Rules and privacy policy pages for more information