web3, whatcha think? is there any meaningful practical use besides cryptocurrency-related?

I think it is the wrong technology for the wrong market and for the wrong people.

It's inefficient.

Security is dependent on the knowledge of the team that implements it.

"Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum." It translates to: "To err is human, but to persist [in error] is diabolical."

To stick the finger in the wound... We have an inefficient technology that claims to be secure but whose security is entirely dependent on a faulty hardware called human.

Smells like burned bacon and fried hardware.

"Wrong people/ wrong market"...

Well. I think cryptocurrency - despite gaining traction everywhere - is the wrong approach on an even more "untrue" bias.

Most people claim that cryptocurrency - as it is decentralized - is free. Problem is it uses the internet.... Which isn't free. That was proven in the last years quite effectively.

Simply put, the government has a finger on the internet and if you don't have a network, it doesn't matter wether it's decentralized or not...

And a currency is only valuable if it's actively accepted. Which some countries do, but as soon as they don't you're just as fucked as when the countrys government goes bankrupt.

Last - wrong people. Well. In Germany they had already failed government projects regarding blockchain (school grades... Don't look it up, it's pain).

Again - it entirely depends whom you can trust, but as you are not your own state or government, neither a cryptocurrency / block chain only implemented and used by yourself makes sense, I think it is a broken concept.

It reminds me in a lot of points of the (sad) state of TLS trust.

How many times did we have in the last 2 years a revocation because companies fucked up reaaaalllllyy badly?

Now think about how governments can fuck up. That's like exponential.

web3 is just a buzzword to advertise for the burning-garbage-heap cashgrab that is NFTs.

also, @IntrusionCM - in germany, we already have failed government projects regarding [name a noun]. that's what we do best. screwing up projects - the bigger, the better.

The maim selling point "decentralisation" is kind of weak.

Even in the existing web, everyone¹ can setup a server on its own, but for many reasons people and businesses don't and instead use large service providers. Mostly because they offer "something" (redundancy, service, cost-effectiveness, better/more knowledge or whatever).
I don't see this solved - let's look at existing services in "Web 3". Surprisingly many people only interact with the services by using a centralised webpage. Surely one could set up an own node and interact with the blockchain but only a very few do - mostly for the same reasons as in the existing web.

¹ simplified

In 2005 I was told enthusiastically about the New great era of the Web, the upcoming age of web 3.0 - the semantic web. It never happened, but at least it was vision. Now the word is rebranded with the biggest imaginable scam pretending to be a vision. Nice.

@horus I remember reading about the Semantic Web in a SPARQL book about 5 years ago. The idea that all these companies would willingly help by providing their own little SPARQL endpoint full of all sort of structured data, conforming to many specifications for free just so some data scientists could make giant queries in some PhD programs sounded absurd.

@nitnip Absurd in the sense of too much faith in cooperation and good will. But still a cool and positive vision. As opposed to what they now web 3 - a vision of not only a better internet but a better world through a concept which is completly absurd in itself and Intentionally made up by scammers to make dinero.

@horus faith in cooperation, goodwill and companies respecting standards. They can't even do that when the information is vital for systems *they* pay for.