>>420
You still linked the video. Try again.

>>421
yeah, and you're a child in brain.

I think it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive given how costly it seems to be to host stuff on blockchain already. At least I think it supposedly is.

I'll give an opinion before and after watching it. Right now Web 3.0 sounds like a bunch of nothing, mostly marketing paragraphs that include a lot of obtuse words without actually saying anything.
Looking at the image now, my opinion hasn't changed. 3D seems like a strange thing to include, is this because of facebook's VR thing?
Watching now...

i thought web 3.0 already happened and we're moving onto web 4.0

>>424
I think they mean habbo hotel and gikopoi. Not really sure. Maybe VR.

The video doesn't mention it as a 2D vs 3D thing. I just picked an image which seemed like something.

Doesn't work. Blockchain is, and always will be, a fundamentally useless technology for just about every situation. We have had transactional ledgers for years. What do you think Git is, conceptually? Beyond blockchain buzzword nonsense, crytocurrencies are also dramatically useless for practical usage. In their current implementation, they're nothing but assets to bid on. You'd be better of transacting your business in Venezuelan Bolivars than Bitcoin. Furthermore, "Tether cryptocurrencies" are nothing but assets held in trust to ensure conversion between it and the legal tender it is exchangeable for; if they're not backed by anything, then they're worthless because they have nothing to support their value, and thus cannot be a tethered store of value if that value can fluctuate.

In regards to Web 3.0 stuff in particular, similar proposals have been made in the past for distributed filehosting wherein people would dedicate a portion of their storage and be compensated for their hosting. I don't think I should have to mention this, but this is an awful idea for many reasons: 1. data integrity; if the data you're storing is not properly encrypted, what's stopping someone from unscrupulously accessing your personal files, or anything else that is sensitive, such as user data or credit card information? Nothing. 2. Distributed hosting akin to bittorrent makes no guarantees in regards to the speed of downloading or uploading, nor does it ensure the data will be stored forever, which leads to 3. If, for whatever reason, all of the hosts for a particular set of files goes offline, what happens to the files? In all likelihood, they're gone forever just as the many torrents over the years have died, but in this case you're potentially facing the loss of your entire business front, personal website, or personal storage. Finally, this leads to 4. If the only guarantee against the instability of distributed networking is centralization, what is the point of having a distributed network in the first place? There are lofty ambitions in saying, "anyone could host files for others and be paid in crypto to keep hosting them," but the reality is that this will quickly be monopolized by large players if it is to succeed in any measure.

I might be missing some of their other points, but one stuck out to me. They mentioned the possibility of having a single profile not bound by any platform. This is an admirable goal, but again, when facing reality there is little in the way of explaining how something such as this could function. Their suggestion was to have some sort of crypto public key used for verification or something along those lines. I fail to see how this would work at scale. Among good faith actors, perhaps it works, but not everyone is a good faith actor. The reality is that if you had some distributed profile with no central authority to declare the validity of a given account, many accounts may be breached or otherwise spoofed with no means of knowing otherwise, unless you have some form of centralization, which against is a strike at the very heart of this "Web 3.0" nonsense.

It's all marketing jargon spewed by fools to attract the gullible with sweet sounding ideas but nothing of substance. At least they put their cards on the table showing how much of a farce the idea is if the best they can do is shout "crypto!" and "blockchain!" a hundred times and hope some rubes think it's a good idea or worth investing in. This kind of stuff makes my blood boil.

Okay, going to make comments as I watch. The thumbnail was not misleading; it seems heavy on internet clipart.

>Papa Elon
*vomits violently*
Feelman, social media emojis, and now this. Fuck this guy. Anyway...

[crypto talk for a few minutes]
Ignoring this, it's unrelated to the topic.
He called a website a "web 3.0 app". He spent a couple minutes talking about a P2P program and implying it was incredible even though he admitted a couple minutes earlier that napster existed 20 years ago. Some talk here or there about encryption, again old hat.
[programmer BS talk]
How does this relate to "3.0" at all? How does this change how the user interacts with the internet? It won't. 2.0 was a major change because the common man could submit content, a huge change from the largely read-only nature of the earlier internet. Privacy? Unrelated, and people don't care about it.
To me this looks like a reason to justify the energy-wasting, environment-destroying pyramid scheme called crypto. The guy is probably a /biz/ or /g/ memer, the images he uses seem to go along with it.
When a headline asks a question the answer is always going to be negative because if the writer was confident it wouldn't be a question. Youtubers seem to follow the same rule.
Grifters, grifters all the way down.

>>425
>i thought web 3.0 already happened
It's unlikely there will ever be a 3.0. It would need to be something like a universal consciousness because there's not much else to expand on when anyone can submit things.

Web3.0 is an eternal retcon of itself

I certainly don't think the web 3.0 people are talking about is something. Not only that but I don't even think it's wanted at all. Your average person doesn't care if the websites he is using are decentralised or not, well actually if anything they probably lean towards centralisation not away from it.

However, I do think there is going to be a web 3.0 but that is going to be AR/VR and the internet of things.

>>443
Average joe didn't care that he could get his plumbing instructions by watching youtube videos. Though I'm not sure he cares about NFT grifters and buying things through crypto (though it's worth pointing out that paypal is very very very very bad and will withhold thousands of dollars in funding somewhat arbitrarily while it's competitors such as stripe are not globally accesible)