diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | .md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md | 163 |
1 files changed, 163 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md b/.md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md index e69de29..3424f96 100644 --- a/.md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md +++ b/.md/thoughts/net/the-web30-people-kinda-scare-me-a-little.md @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +*Note: this article discusses web 3.0 in the context I originally +understood it, which I now understand was coined by [Gavin +Wood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3). I have no understanding of, +or interest in Tim Berners-Lee's concept of the +[Semantic Web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web)* + +## We are all Satoshi + +Satoshi Nakamoto committed the first block to a blockchain with: "The +Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." A +technology born in global financial crisis, known only among a group of +people who liked to call themselves the "cypherpunks, Bitcoin--and the +blockchain concept on which is was based--was a technology born from +political turmoil and couldn't be anything but a political statement. + +What was that statement exactly? + +If you read the Bitcoin white paper, and I highly recommend you do since +it's probably one of the best-written research papers in recent memory, +the impression you get is somewhere between utilitarianism and utopia. +Freedom and psuedonymity achieved through the mathematically perfect +organization of cryptography. + +Without trying to re-write the white paper, the core concept can be +described very simply. Say you have a network of random schmoes with +computers (some people call this the "Internet," but let's not get hung +up on jargon). You can organize these people into three main camps: +miners, nodes, and buyers. The nodes all keep a record of all +transactions ever made on the Bitcoin network. The miners, using +cryptography (and therefore CPU power), check these nodes to make sure +they're all accurate and up to date. The first miner that checks a full +set of transactions wins the Bitcoin. The people with the Bitcoin serve +kind of like a mint, distributing the currency to user's wallets in +exchange for pizza, illegal drugs, but most usually: cash. The buyers +ultimately provide the value of Bitcoin and make transactions with it +for the nodes to update, the miners to check and so on. + +The best part of all this, is that unlike traditional digital payment +like credit cards or Paypal: no corporation needs to do the bookeeping. +Instead, any volunteer with an internet connection can store and serve +their own copy of the book, the record of transactions Satoshi calls a +blockchain. The idea comes directly from torrenting, where anyone with +a link to the torrent can download a file from potentially thousands of +others who are also serving (or seeding) the file. + +There is a world that Bitcoin needs for all this to operate in a neat +way. Bitcoin demands a society of volunteers for it's book-keeping, a +gathering of self-starters for it's mining and maintenance (preferably +ones that don't track or scam people), and something like a national +myth--a belief that you have *something*, and that *something* has worth. + +But the world that's come out of it, seems far off from that ideal to +me. + +## We are the Web 3.0 people + +I imagine anyone reading this who happens to be part of crypto start up +is either seething with rage at how little detail I went into or is +completely unaware of any of that history. They also might snipe that +Bitcoin is irrelevant nowadays. Bitcoin is becoming something +of a "boomer" cryptocurrency now that some feel has seen better days in +spite of the booming price. But that's all it is--an imperfect software +hijacked into a get-rich-quick-scheme. Prophetically they hint that +something bigger is coming. + +If Web 1.0 was a littering of static content left by bored users and +Web 2.0 made the pictures move with your mouse to lull us all into +surveillance capitalism, Web 3.0, to it's proponents, is the light at +the end of the tunnel that will replace all those tyrannical centralized +software corps with user-owned and user-operated *de*centralized means +of communicating and commerce. To the libertarian: it's the end of the +Fed, the end of big government crony capitalism, and something like the +start of *Wealth of Nations*. To the marxist: it's the working class +owning entirely the means of commerce on the Internet organized +bureaucratically as open-source projects tend to become. + +Gavin Wood, the coiner of the term Web 3.0 as I understand it, had this +to say back in 2014: + +``` +WIRED: What's your handy elevator definition of Web3? + +“Less trust, more truth.” + +WIRED: What does “less trust” mean? + +I have a particular meaning of trust that’s essentially faith. It's the +belief that something will happen, that the world will work in a certain +way, without any real evidence or rational arguments as to why it will +do that. So we want less of that, and we want more truth--which what I +really mean is a greater reason to believe that our expectations will be +met. + +WIRED: It sounds like you're saying "less blind faith, more credible +trustworthiness." + +Yes and no. I think trust in itself is actually just a bad thing all +around. Trust implies that you are you're placing some sort of authority +in somebody else, or in some organization, and they will be able to use +this authority in some arbitrary way. As soon as it becomes credible +trust, it's not really trust anymore. There is a mechanism, a +rationale, an argument, a logical mechanism--whatever--but in my mind, +it's not trust. +``` + +On the surface there's no way this doesn't seem wonderful. There are few +people I imagine who would argue that blind-faith in authority is a good +thing. And to our inner anarchist: should *anyone* really rule over us +anyway. + +But I don't question the idealism of the Web 3.0 people, or that they +really believe they are making the world a freer more efficient place. +What I question is: does blockchain technology, as described by +Nakamoto and as expanded on by many others, actually achieve these +ends? And will the people at large, who ultimately are left the task to +run this Web 3.0 as volunteers, actually fall in line with the ideal the +software developers see so clearly expressed in code. + +## We do not forgive. We do not forget. + +### China's Social Credit System + +### The digital dollar + +### A data mining society + +Many of the Web 3.0 people would agree with the often quoted point +against social media companies: "we own our data so they should pay +us." The sentiment fits perfectly into the Web 3.0 agenda. Enter +steemit, a crypto-powered Twitter/Facebook like web front where you can +write articles, make articles, like other's work, and get paid for it +all! ... + +Brave is attempting a similar kind of project with their Basic Attention +Token (BAT), which rewards users of the browser for watching sponsored +ads. ... + +## We would like you to play + +At the core of the ideology of Web 3.0, I can't help but feel a strong +urge--particularly from software-minded people--to gamify society. Write +the article to get your coins. Read the book to gain XP. Gain XP to get +more visibility for your articles, and get even more coins. + +## We will all be Satoshi + +The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, a name intentionally chosen since it +is parallel to the English "John Doe," is still unknown as of this +writing. But Wikipedia has a surprisingly complete set of references on +what we *do* know. + +... + +Most interesting to me is the case of Len Sassaman, which I caught in +earlier revisions of the article, but was removed due to lack of a +source. + +## Do we want this? + +## References + +1. https://www.wired.com/story/web3-gavin-wood-interview/ +2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible_identities |