Wanting a decentralised web and to become the dominant financial platform have some conflicts of interest.
Besides email, BitTorrent, Tor, and Bitcoin (and to some degree projects that form their ideas), there’s not a lot of successful, widespread decentralised protocols, and the ones we’ve got are even subject to constant invasion by dominating platforms (e.g. Gmail for email).
I'm not sure when it happened but all of suddenly the discussion on anything related to blockchain became very black and white. Anyone that tries to nuance the topic gets immediately called out as favouring this or that.
Yeah there sure seems to be alot of scams. But the idea that it would dismiss everything related to the blockchain seems like taking it a step too far in the other direction? I'm no expert but I get extreme flashback of the era when PHP was considered radioactive garbage and any attempts of nuance was struck down
Well you have to ignore the total absolutism and extreme rhetoric that is taken from either direction: Those "who totally support it" and think that all crypto projects and its technology will take over the banks, institutions and payment processors and those "who are totally against" it and think it will 100% collapse, go away and the technology won't be used by anyone.
I'm afraid that both of them are setting themselves up to being disappointed.
It’s hard to ignore the absolutist echoes, because the extremes are rewarded so much: The hype train will airdrop you some NFTs, and the haters will upvote one another because being a conservative skeptic is so authoritative.
Yeah like every other technology it will either ultimately prove its worth or fade into obscurity like everything else. I just don't see the point with these extreme viewpoints.
The unbanked and the oppressed need Web3. After all, 5% of each transaction of ScamOfTheDayCoin will go to the orphans -- once we upgrade to the new liquidity pool. And do migrate soon or the 100% tax kicks in (your next transaction)!...
I recognize you're being sarcastic, but to answer the serious arguers of this "unbanked and oppressed need Web3" statement the answer is still no.
Hawala is a method of money transfer dating to the 8th century. You give some money to a broker, they take some cut, then communicate to a broker at the other end to give the person you specify the amount you requested be delivered. Then the brokers settle accounts independently in a fashion that suits them. In this way it has the same non-banking cross-border benefits that cryptocurrency does (and for privacy may even be preferable since the transaction doesn't appear on any standardized nor public ledger).
It also ranges in legal status from illegal to highly illegal depending on jurisdiction, as it turns out this is a very convenient way to fund terrorism (because it's proven to work for people who are disconnected from official financial channels). It's also used for perfectly innocent purposes, but because it cannot be monitored due to the peer-to-peer nature of the transactions between brokers and individualized bookkeeping it's banned.
I consider its legal status to be a canary for the status of cryptocurrency's role in cross-border transactions. The bits that are effective will eventually be banned (we've already seen this in practice with the recent conviction of that Ethereum founder who was trying to help North Korea evade sanctions with cryptocurrency) and the bits that are the same as the banking status quo will be allowed, making it effectively no different from the status quo.
We do need decentralization for some applications. Few but not zero of us need cryptocurrency.
The problem is cryptocurrency taking over decentralization, and removing some of the advantages(Its usually not fully partition tolerant or suitable for an emergency when your area only has crappy inefficient mesh nets, phones, and 20w solar panels)
OK. Someone was very bored and upset and decided to pay for a domain specifically to determine if one needs web3 or not, which for them, they know that the answer is No.
But they knowingly post it here anyway to try and waste your time and rack up low effort reactions. To each to their own.
However, does that also mean it is all going to collapse and go away 100% guaranteed because you don't need it now?
EDIT to OP (Hates_): Since you are the OP and also the creator of the site, just to ask this question: Why was your tweet deleted after you posted this here? [0] Care to explain?
