NFTs? Crypto? Web3? If you're confused, start here
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- 🌏 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ NordVPN.com/sabine It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check your knowledge: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
What is web3? I've tried to figure it out and here is my summary of what I have learned about NFTs and cryptocurrencies, about dapps and defi and blockchains, and all that. Tbh I have been a little befuddled by what's going on. Let me know what you think about all that in the comments.
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
🤓 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Now also on Spotify ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
00:00 Intro
00:44 Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
02:21 Web 3.0 and Web3
07:00 Web3 Use Cases
13:55 Criticism
15:31 Stay Safe with NordVPN
#web3 #quizwithit - Наука та технологія
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check how much you remember: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1697452388751x473672335667751040
*Web4 allows for time travel!* ... I came back to today just to let everyone know.
Ha 😅
Some people may see this as a joke, but it isn't.
Looking forward to it ❤TT is fun
Which stocks should I buy?
omg i love this comment xD
What was hilarious about the $69M NFT was the likelihood that it was a group wash-sale where the owner was technically buying it from himself through someone helping him.
back then Beeple openly stated that he doesn't trust crypto and instantly cashed out / converted to USD
@@dadapotok Crypto is a scam, always has be, always will be. Surrounding technology like NFT that make it seem like "not actually money (but still basically money so please invest)" are just to hide the money and gambling part a bit so they can scam more/different people.
In general, every currency not regulated by a government that can be manipulated by a "market" is a scam waiting to happen. Cryptocurrency is designed for those 2 things.
That does not mean that gov controlled currency cannot be a scam, sometimes they are too.
That's at least half the NFTs out there.
yea im sure that was some money laundering scheme, maybe all NFT are just that
Sale != transaction. Sales establish value. Transactions frame price expectation. Conspicuous, non-sale transactions are especially useful if you plan to unload a pile, soon, in exchange for an instrument with actual fiat to back it up over the long haul.
Very early in the life of Internet, there was a strong movement towards keeping the Internet non-commercial and free from interference from money. I find a certain irony in the way the Internet is becoming the money, even the currency.
I remember, but most forgot or never knew. It was like the 1960s cultural changes that the 1980s killed. The internet was an elgatiatian society of sharing individuals bent creating a system of knowledge for the greater good. A great many smart people put years of their time creating software and sharing their ideas to create a system anyone could use. As it turned out those "anyone's" where anything but smart or egalitarian and we elected second rate politicians to regulate them. If capitalism was regulated to reward intelligence and goodwill and the greedy and vexatious were taxed for their efforts, as opposed to what we have now, we'd all be living in a world of plenty, safety and constant improvement.
Back to BITnet and gopher for you graybeards!
As far as I understood circa 2005, web 2.0 was supposed to be the era of peer to peer, with strong individual power & freedom for everyone but it has been pretty much erased and overwritten by a few big companies who understood it is better to keep everything going through their expensive, energy-wasting servers. Peer to peer was also branded as something similar to criminality. Then the cloud-era was born and we still unknowingly suffer from it. Personally, I expect no awesome change from the Internet.
The main problem of peer-to-peer is security. A spambot, spyware or a virus can always mask themselves as one of the peers.
This is fine for experienced users who know what to expect and what to avoid.
But very dangerous for common user. That's why a move to scripted, interactive internet also meant a move to huge centralized platforms, who can tackle these threats way more effectively than small, independent creators can...
It's part of why Blockchain will never be successful on its own. It's a decentralised database that puts power in the hands of the users... ok, but what's in it for the corporations? Why would they give up their control?
Video games are a common example, where the database that determines who is allowed to use what objects in the game is decentralised on a Blockchain so that users "really own" their items. But no such game has ever been successful, and why not? Because video game companies have no incentive to give that control to users. They want to own that database so they maintain the power - so they can change things, ban people, fix game balance, and ultimately so they can use that power in order to make money.
Similarly a Blockchain is not practical for things like copyright or proof of ownership because the state (the courts) demand the ultimate say on this. If a person dies without leaving a mechanism for reassigning their property, and a court orders that it belongs to their second cousin, or if it decides that Happy Birthday is not in fact under copyright, it needs to be able to override the database unilaterally. And that is not a decentralised database, that's just the same system we have now.
@@fang_xianfuThe problem isn't big government nor big corps but that mistakes and malfeasance become irreversible without the oversight of a trusted human authority.
If ownership of your home got fraudulently transferred away from you, how would you reverse it? The entire user base of the property blockchain would have to agree since you don't have the ownership status of the property.
That is millions of people need to provide their consent. No scale this beyond reality and see how many legal disputes happen in a day. How many hours per day of your life are you willing to making decisions about if Karen deserves a refund?
Democratic societies delegate authority to government because we simply do not have the time to do otherwise. This is why anarchist societies don't scale and don't endure. They are too inefficient.
This is also why corporations which is a form of collective ownership are so successful. It pools resources into a more efficient mechanism for an enduring enterprise.
The web is just one protocol of many. P2P was happening at the same time but it wasn't in the web.
@@jal051 The web is a collection of protocols which can include P2P protocols. The web is just a marketing term rather than a technical one.
The internet is not the hardware. Ok, it is also the hardware, but it is everything up to TCP/IP (and UDP/IP). IP = Internet Protocol! It's also a lot of software that runs routers, DNS, etc. The internet is about package delivery and name resolution. The web is only one application running on the internet. Other such applications are: email (SMTP/POP3/IMAP), IRC, NTP, Voice-over-IP, VPN, git, SSH, any online game, etc. (and yes, also blockchains)
Exactly. The internet is the hardware, the firmware, and the OS!
The internet is the electronic equivalent of the postal service.
[The web is only one application running on the internet...]
So, software running on the hardware of the internet??
I'm not sure there is a fixed definition of the internet, might be best to think of it as a concept. The implementation involves a lot of moving parts, some software, some hardware.
@@MartinMaat That's quite a nice analogy - right down to the fact that the internet _also_ doesn't work well in a lot of places! 😂
The problem with web3 is that is being pushed by people who don't shut up about freedom, but they only think about monetization. If they could they'd charge you for opening the browser.
In many ways I miss web 1.0, where you didn't spend any money nor you had to be identified anywhere.
And the vast majority of users were capable of, and willing to, think for themselves and hold civil discussions.
web 1.0 did what you wanted it to, web 2.0 not so much
Correction: the biggest NFT sales are very likely all scams where the seller and the buyer are either in cahoots to artificially inflate prices or are actually the same person paying themselves between two "not actually money" wallets - at least virtually all big sales that have been investigated look like that.
I wouldn’t discount the possibility of money laundering. I agree that most are wash sales though.
Are there NFT offerings which specialize in particular types of snake oil? Digitized oil of rattlesnakes, oil of copperheads, etc. ? Perhaps synergistic packages where Florida swampland is combined with nonfungible oil from snakes from that very swamp?
why
🔥 UGLY FACT 🔥 People in power (Legacy finance, business families & royal mafias) will NEVER allow true decentralization to take place🤏 If they sniff any true success in this arena, they will plot another 9/11 to use the shock environment to criminalize true freedom seekers🤏 This is why Web3, DAO & DeFi promise r too good to be possible or realistic in our unjust world 🤏
@@jeffreysoreff9588 there's an NFT "collection" called "Snake Oil Club". Selling ugly doodles that look to have been drawn by a 5 year old (but probably took careful programming to achieve) at ~$30 for the common pieces....
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Web3 is not so bad, but just not ready to use by ordinary people. It will be grow a few years before can start usable, and they defentely have potential.
Investors pour money into technology that would make the web more democratic. yeah right
Many investors are also idealists
@@grantcivyt Many so-called idealists are liers trying to make money while being praised as good people. Look at effective altruism.
Still at the core web3 is more democratic, never mind how much a company invests in it. The idea of the blockchain being a glorified excel sheet is misleading. The core idea is that you don't need to trust a central party, or anyone in fact, to still be able to determine or proof which version of the "excel sheet" is correct.
I like Sabine, but here she left out a major thing.
@@Jopie65 Yes, there's a promise to web3 that's valuable, but it's one that doesn't matter much to average people in a reasonably free society.
I like the vision of web3. I only wish we could progress beyond the fraud more quickly. The real challenge is that we haven't quite hit on a killer use case yet. Cryptocurrency is the best we have.
@@grantcivyt Well if by "idealist" you mean "libertarian fascists who think they'll come out on top" sure, you're right.
I dunno, do venture captialists really believe in Web3, or do they believe they can still squeeze significant sums of money out of the concept before it goes belly up?
It's the job description of a venture capitalist to maximise return on investment. In the eyes of the market, they shouldn't be letting believing in anything cloud their financial judgement. So the question is really, what does the ROI sales pitch look like for a Blockchain company exactly? I assume it's something like "we can convince x number of people to buy y dollars worth of Bitcoin and we can take z% as a handling fee resulting in $r of revenue. So, it's definitely the latter.
🔥 UGLY FACT 🔥 People in power (Legacy finance, business families & royal mafias) will NEVER allow true decentralization to take place🤏 If they sniff any true success in this arena, they will plot another 9/11 to use the shock environment to criminalize true freedom seekers🤏 This is why Web3, DAO & DeFi promises r too good to be possible or realistic in our unjust world 🤏
Willing to wager Vulture Capitalists don't know what any of it is and just are on for the ride. If you read the marketing around all the Blockchain it's a lot of fluff and empty promise. Nothing real. Except the gambling (buying, selling, trading).
From a VC point of view, there is no difference between these two.
Probably. I know that's what I'm doing with crypto lol. Hey, at least I'm honest about it... unlike those "crypto bros" :P
The difficulty I have with Web3 is that little if anything it creates seems to have any inherent value, suggesting virtually all economic activity it creates is in the form of bigger fool schemes
🔥 UGLY FACT 🔥 People in power (middle men in legacy finance, business families & royal mafias) will NEVER allow true decentralization to take place🤏 If they sniff any true success in this arena, they will plot another 9/11 to use the shock environment to criminalize true freedom seekers🤏 This is why Web3, DAO & DeFi promises r too good to be possible or realistic in our unjust world 🤏
It's all about speculation. Now for making it and later for exploiting it.
It's like schoolchildren playing at recess making up their own rules in a fantasy universe, and assigning 'value' to it. (posting as my main thoughts on this as well)
@@LelandMaurello You just described USD, now burn your money.
@@ogsandwich Yes, that too!
I was in a VC accelerator in Tokyo. So many ridiculous ideas, everybody was starting with the goal of using crypto, nfts, Dao, etc. and trying to think of a business afterwards. Or if they already had a business idea they racked their brains trying to incorporate something from web3
yep, web3 is a "solution searching for a problem" 😔
I'm not sure Web3 is about software developers getting carried away so much as con men realising there's a new way to relieve some people of their wealth. Anyway, I was working on the technologies that will / should underlie the semantic web about 20 years ago. It had a massive flaw then and I believe it still does now. A human has to semantically mark up the content for it to be understood by a machine. No one is willing to do that, it's expensive enough to make the content anyway without adding the cost of additional markup that will only really be of benefit to others.
There’s techniques…but they are far from perfect yet.
Semantically marking content could give users some reward in the form of cryptocurrency.
1. Problem: For that cryptocurrency to have value some has to be willing to trade something for that currency that has intrinsic value due to being useful.
2. Problem: Someone could just spam wrong semantic markups to farm cryptocurrency.
Can you solve the problems?
@@jannikheidemann3805 3. Problem: It would inventivize people to mass-produce even more junk quantity-over-quality content to farm crypto (which would inevitably run out). We already can't just find recipes without some fake life story in the prologue due to SEO, and crypto rewards would just ramp that up even more
i think you just fell into the very trap that they want you to. You mixed up web3 and web3.0 in your comment, two very different things as explained in the video
Users happily mark up content if it gives them a benefit.
A simple example is the HTML element: users use it to get proper formatting, machines learn about rows and columns without any extra work by the user.
Another example are these infoboxes on many Wikipedia pages. They're filled in templates. Used, because they give nice and consistent formatting, machines can read semantics from it.
Yes, nudging users into using such mechanisms is an art. Sometimes it works great, sometimes not. Well done it usually works.
In the 90s, I lived in downtown Seattle next to a Virtual Reality company. Every employee there thought in 10 years we’d all be living in VR. 30 years later, VR is still not much more than Beat Saber. Some things just don’t work as well as expected.
yeah, I agree.. I went through the 3D worlds craze (apparently) where the WWW would all become 3D... I am still waiting for that to emerge.
@@axle.australian.patriotVRchat is that
Genius idea: maybe we can get fusion energy to work in virtual reality spaces?
@@richardmetzler7909 Virtual fusion to power the virtual world... Interesting, I had a conversation about this over dinner :P
Vrchat is a thing u know
The internet isn't just the hardware, it's also protocols, means software. Most noticeable there are TCP/IP, routing protocols, DNS. The WWW in turn is an application or service that uses the internet.
She isn't full tech. The point is the Internet is not USER operated. It is all unseen and runs on the hardware making the network. Then applications - Web, Email, FTP, etc run on top.
But - deep down. YOU ARE RIGHT.
@@BStott The web (HTTP + HTML) is no more "user operated" than the internet itself. What the user interacts with is REPRESENTATIONS of documents as rendered by a web user agent.
OSI Model enters the chat
Agreed, but for most people the internet just is the web.
What I know for sure is that as computers are getting ever faster and more powerful, Microsoft will always find ways to make them work as slow as they did at the time of Win 98. It's mind blowing.
Yep. My current fw 13 running a 1340p with a gen 4 ssd and 32 gb of ddr4 3200 is as slow in windows as my old 6300U. It has 6 times the cores and 4 times the threads, almost double the frequency, a very significant architectural advantage (and you can feel it when actually computing stuff, mindblowingly faster both in single and multi threaded tasks) but it manages to be exactly as laggy as the older one.
I frankly don't know how they do it.
But I'll never transition to linux, as when I did everything broke several times and I lost days fixing stuff and/or reinstalling everything. I'd rather be slightly laggy and have to use VMs than losing my stuff every 2 months.
It's also incredible how consumer Linux manages to be so bad while enterprise Linux is the literal second coming of Jesus Christ
Ah yes, web3, where we're all supposed to throw away our money on crypto and NFT's. Think I'll take a pass on that one.
Or. Keep doing what you're doing and make money. And do other things as well.
@@blackfeatherstill348 Why does it only has to be about money, everything on web3 is just about getting money and buying digital stuff and trying to getting richer, people don't want that from the internet
@@blackfeatherstill348 Anything for money, just like Bankman-Fried, eh? I have quite enough now, and my conscience precludes that anyway.
@@blackfeatherstill348 It can't "make" money, it can only reallocate it. People have to put fiat money into it for you to get fiat money out of it. Ultimately it's a game where everyone throws money into a box and then tries to grab more than they put in. There are necessarily losers.
Only while there are fools willing to buy this rubbish. When they realise that it is all a con thse fools will vanish. @@blackfeatherstill348
An important issue for NFTs, which some do not realize, is that you are only buying a token of ownership. The item itself, as much as it actually exists, is outside the blockchain and its fate is ultimately under the control of others. You could buy an NFT for an image, only to wake up one day to find a disgruntled person has replaced "your" image file with another or that the site hosting it no longer even exists. An even more concerning issue is that the whole of crypto and NFTs, with their lack of regulation and oversight as well as creating "value" from nothing, seem designed to be a playground for con men and confidence tricksters. And indeed, the industry seems riddled with such scams at all levels.
Image NFTs are a small part of what they can and should be used for. They are a fundamentally pro-consumer technology
Also, I would rather have people putting value into ownership rights/links to jpegs than e.g. diamonds mined out of the earth with oil, slavery, child labor, toxic chemicals, and massive geological damage
@@theclownofclowns Many people understand that but that's just a conscious feel-good choice to justify morality but without those poisons all the materialism that people trend to consume what's tangible as normal to fill that empty void, is necessary and the slavery part is to keep prices low for those that take it for granted to consume from those who profit.
in another words that anyone can understand: It is bloody useless.
I could easily see property rights being handled with NFTs in the far future. Any products are tagged with physically embedded codes in a way that is impossible to remove, like they do with natural diamonds.
You then physically hold that code or it is then attached to your identity on some other platform.
When you sell it, you have to authorize the transfer of ownership to the other person's identity.
You could implement this in a way that is 100% private and anonymous, similar to how Monero works or using Zero-knowledge proofs.
It'll be a long while until this is implemented for small consumer products, but I could easily see governments using NFTs for property deeds in the near future. It's pretty much inevitable at this point unless we return to the stone age somehow.
And yes I hate that thought too. But I guarantee you it will happen eventually. If not in the next 30 years, maybe in 100 years. Which might even still affect you depending on how much life expectancy rises...
The biggest advantage of blockchains seems to be that tacking the label onto any dumb idea still attracts investors.
Much like in the field of AI, billionaire investors want to be part of future so they'll believe any salesman with even the slightest bit of tech knowledge. Nowadays if you're female or non-white it's even easier to sell promises because you're a racist if you don't invest. Meanwhile the real work in AI, blockchain, etc. is being done by studious, serious scholars who don't want to go to galas or have brunch with billionaires.
use english subtitles
use english subtitles
Thanks for another interesting and well-crafted video, Sabine! You're the best! 🙂
Great video on the topic. I just need to correct that in the case of a cryptocurrency, the blocks are not transactions. Depending on the block size, a block can contain multiple transactions. 7:07
Ah, thanks. Sorry for mixing this up!
This is a really good point. The way I like to think of each block is like a single page in a ledger that gets totaled at the end and signed off on by the accountant before starting the next page. Except in this case the accountant are public miners.
@@thewiirocks very cool... but probably nothing
@@SabineHossenfelder Sabine, you should not have done a video on this topic, at least not before you've spent multiple hundred hours on research. You've shown a blatant ignorance of fundamental principles of blockchain and decentralization. This is a much deeper topic than you think. I enjoy your physics videos, very educational, but this - it's just wrong. For me this was almost as painful experience as for you watching flat earthers explain physics.
I'd advise you to check an actual expert - Andreas Antonopoulos.
@@SabineHossenfelder You mixed up like 800 other things in this video too. Perhaps you should consult an expert on topics that are not science related so you don't embarrass yourself.
It was last seen on Cornwall coast but fell off the cliff at Dover and disappeared...😊
reborn as a sun-preacher at Stonehenge...
It'll eventually wash up on Normandy, then, huh?
I think the first back end processing script was Cold Fusion. We also had Perl and then ASP came along later as I recall.
Active Server Pages was such a shit tech looking back.
I am always on the lookout for news sources that present the facts without bias and completely impartial analysis of those facts. So far I have found it on this channel.
Thank you for the video.
I'll just quote the definitive video on this issue by the youtuber Folding Ideas: "If someone pitches you on a "great" Web3 project, ask them if it requires buying or selling crypto to do what they say it does."
And the same scammers were all over the web around 2000. They'll be in the minority after a while.
Just like using UA-cam required you buy a phone or a laptop?
@@remain___False analogy. We already had home computers before UA-cam.
@@SteveW139 and why did you already have a home computer?
Buying and selling of a cryptocurrency in exchange for another currency, be such latter conventional or crypto, is for example not necessarily for exchanging useful services like computing resources like game hosting or data annotation from peer to peer.
The currency then is useful for ensuring fairness in that exchange.
One could for example build a peer review cheat reporting system in an peer to peer online game, where reporting someone costs tokens that can be gained by reviewing the cheat reports of others in votes of randomly selected juries.
The cost of tokens to make one report would have to be equal to the number of peers on a jury.
If different player groups have different ideas about what fair play is, they sould be less likely to get matched with each other. That way if cheaters run bots that don't acknowledge any cheat reports as valid they would more and more likely be matched with others that vote similarly.
Web isn't just the software of the internet. Or more precisely, it isn't the only one. Web is whatever you're seeing in a web browser. If you remember IRC/MSN/other messenger clients, those are another service on the internet, not part of the web. Same goes with email. Nowadays all of these can be accessed through web apps, but the underlying service is not necessarily part of the web. The Web is just the websites loading in a web browser through HTTP.
Exactly. There are also other subtle misconceptions and omissions in the video (for example, the "semantic web" is a *very* old concept).
I like Sabine, but she should stick to physics.
@@jasondoe2596 I think it's good to explore other topics, despite the occasional inaccuracies.
@@szaszm_ Sabine is a thinking person, and it's natural that she'd want to share her concerns on a variety of topics. But you need a lot more research than that to do it properly.
@@jasondoe2596 ?? She isn't wrong about semantic web being a very old concept. She made the distinction between semantic web and what's currently known as Web3.
Also, let's make this clear: The dumbest physicist is smarter than the smartest computer scientist, and in fact all the smartest computer scientists are math/physics people. Saying someone should "stick to physics" when they're discussing tech is like telling a mathematician solving 6th grade algebra problems that they should stick to topology.
Finger
The Web3 crowd are exactly the same kind of people who used the term "Information Super Highway" back in the 90s...
Happy 1m subscribes Sabine, you're one of the most valuable icons in the science nowadays, and I'm so glad I stumbled across your channel.
Regards from Colombia
999k subs. Watching for the 1M tick!
As a computer engineer I say this is 98% accurate. I'd probably just modify the definition of NFT a bit. It's just a tradable link to some JSON data, not technically a picture of a monkey, cat, etc. So you can trade anything, like contracts/shares etc. Ironically, the JSON still needs to be hosted by a centralized participant, or you have to pay someone to host it for you via a distributed hosting network... so really it's all still centralized.
Well yes but depending on the block size you can store any amount of data in the contract. So some NFTs do actually hold the artwork in the contract on the blockchain. Most of the time this is too expensive to do.
But regardless of where the actual data is stored in think its a bit too reductive to conclude that it's all centralized just bc someone stored the jpeg on aws. What really matters in this case would be determining who holds ownership of a digital work, contract etc.
It doesn't even have to be JSON. Or data. NFTs can be certs themselves.
@@SuperAleaiactaest yea, I wrote the entire works of Shakespeare to my Ethereum fork, in like 2017. 'What really matters in this case would be determining who holds ownership of a digital work, contract etc.' Sure, but a blockchain doesn't do that. A court of law does, at least for now, and for the foreseeable future. Contract law is pretty lenient in what can constitute a contract, it doesn't even need to be in writing. Unless someone can enforce these contracts, they are meaningless. You can say you own it all you want, but the police won't care. However! having the payment visible for such a contract would be useful in proving that due consideration was given as part of the contract, which is an important part of contracts. But an invoice does that too. :/
As a computer scientist I say you're wrong, and also I don't see how someone who's an expert in hardware thinks that also makes them an expert in software or cryptography.
@@JustMe-lp5td well where you're wrong is that it can be enforced in other smart contracts, whereas in the real world it's possible to have laws which are not upheld or just flat out ignored / interpreted away. So in that sense smart contracts (including the use case of NFTs as a record of ownership of an asset) actually results in a system provably more enforceable than today's court of laws systems. The problem is that people today don't understand web 3 thanks to videos like this and so they'll continue to put their trust in broken systems rather than web 3 which would actually fix most of the problems if you let all contract law live as on-chain code.
I'm surprised that you included the flashy high prices, but not what some of them fell to later. Like the NFT of Jack Dorsey's first tweet, which initially sold for $2.9 million, and now has a highest offer of $3,000 (for a month, the seller didn't get offers above a few dollars).
Is any NFT, more than a year later, worth what it sold for? I bet lots of them lose their value in a few days
Too obvious.
selling "vaporware" isn't web3
I still have a few tulips around if anyone wants to bid on
@@gatube2362Except that a tulip bulb from the 17th century might be actually worth something now.
12:51 Communism? If anything, it seems more like how shareholders make decisions about the companies they invest in. The biggest difference is that while shareholder votes only happen every so often, these systems could potentially allow for that to happen much more often, giving investors much more direct control (and reducing the need for management).
yeah she has no idea what communism is. By what she just said Apple, Microsoft, Exxon and every publicly traded company is commies. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
But it's bad, so it has to be communism
Couldn't agree more.
Although I like Sabine and her videos, this particular one strikes me as quite misleading. It leaves out a major property of the blockchain on top of "glorified excel sheets". You don't have to trust a central party, or any party at all, to determine which version of the chain is correct.
This is the core principle that drives web3 and is simply not mentioned in her video.
@@Jopie65 That's true if the chain isn't about anything except itself - then it's correct by definition. But if it's trying to state a fact about the real world, like who owns a property or whatever, then just like any other database it can be incorrect or out of date. The difference is that with a legally important database if it's centralised the nation state can order the administrators to correct it. With blockchain there may be no-one the state can find who is able to correct it, so it will just stay out of date and become irrelevant.
@@barneylaurance1865 Governments could design smart contracts where similar corrections could be made. Some would say it defeats the purpose of Blockchain and smart contracts. But I argue that it could still be beneficial instead of centralized excel sheets if designed well enough. E.g. in ease of use and reliability.
Owning NFT's means that you own the receipt, not the actual stuff. Everyone can own my NFT image but only I can own its receipt. To make money out of NFT's you need someone slightly more stupid than the one who sells them.
If your NFT is a receipt for a house (not a jpeg) it will make more sense to people.
NFT's are ridiculous.People should have known better.
you think about it to limited, all the nft image hype was just a byproduct, where blockchain really shines is providing not really fakeable logs/data. For example it would be great for elections where everyone gets a random wallet code for voting. Would be really hard for officials to cheat in this kind of election. It would be live and traceable without any ballot counting shenenigans
@@acdg7431The receipt would only have a real benefit if it's legally accepted.
@@acdg7431 The receipt doesn't confer ownership, virtual or physical. Trading an NTF doesn't mean you own the house, as the NTF isn't recognised by the government or anyone else. To complete the transaction, you have to sign over ownership irl. If you want to buy a house with crypto, just transfer the crypto, and sign the papers,no NFT required.
Also, the picture doesn't exist on the chain, only thee receipt does, the picture needs to be hosted on a third party server who can delete or modify the picture on a whim nor does it stop other people copy pasting.
I will say that the blockchain data structure actually does have some value in creating tamper-resistant records. I've actually used them in one of my designs for records that could potentially be used in court documents.
What prevents a malicious actor from creating a fork consisting of tampered data after they gain access to 51% of all validation nodes?
What happens when bad data is entered?
@@ZahraIsMyDogThe point of a validation technique like a blockchain is the difficulty of obtaining over 50% (or whatever other threshold the system defines) of nodes. It's the same concept used in most computer security; you don't have to make things impossible, just impractically difficult.
Validity on blockchain networks is enforced by the actors that contribute to it; falsifying records can carry penalties. Many modern blockchains also posses the ability to undo malicious changes caused by a (theoretical) malicious majority holder on the network.
@@bulletflight The point of a validation technique like a blockchain is the difficulty of obtaining over 50% (or whatever other threshold the system defines) of nodes. It's the same concept used in most computer security; you don't have to make things impossible, just impractically difficult.
Validity on blockchain networks is enforced by the actors that contribute to it; falsifying records can carry penalties. Many modern blockchains also posses the ability to undo malicious changes caused by a (theoretical) malicious majority holder on the network.
@@mileswithau The number of nodes in a platform can go up, or down. So you could, in future, find that that there are very few nodes and the data that you were trying to secure is no longer secure. It's not like "The US Treasury", an institution that can will exist as long as "The United States" exists.
Besides, the records mentioned aren't being saved in the Bitcoin (or some other) crypto chain. It's being saved in a platform that has far fewer nodes - perhaps one node. Which is fine, as long as you protect that one node.
Nice walk down memory lane! I agree with you. While the blockchain and the applications it can support are a cool idea, It really seems that the areas where it would really be useful are niche. Perhaps in areas where there are trust problems with local authorities and systems to track ownership? Crypto currency always seemed to me to have use in something like foreign exchange transactions. I would always chuckle when people would talk about "investing" in "crypto", as if the average schmuck wakes up and says, "hmm, today I think I'll 'invest' in the Pakistanian rupee!". If you're not an FX trader, that's a good way to loose all your money, smh.
I've seen too many shady promotions about online that were to completely revolutionize life since the Web was a thing. Also, I have seen many useful technologies that very useful in specific niches be pushed to do things they were never designed to do.
Also, many 'out dated' solutions like in person shopping, banking, etc. are functioning quite well no matter what the various frauds, idiots, and assorted PR flacks think.
Microsoft "Bob" (aka Windows for those who didn't understand Windows) comes to mind.
Banking functions very well for the incredibly rich. When will we have the competitor to the central bank, the decentralized bank?
Do you think the entire decentralised space is a scam or just blockchain stuff?
My pet hate is companies sell online only and refuse to ship by post. The delivery companies are outrageously incompetent. I don't need the monthly hassle of expecting undelivered items. 😱
Keeping up with the Joneses but for investors.
subbie coin goes hard, id buy into sabine's crypto scam
She does! 7:31
@@hyperbaroque yep haha i saw
It sounds to me they want all of my money, items that can be digitally provided and have it public and withing a limited area. This is a scary world.
Bjarne Stroustrop, the creator of C++, recently said in an interview that he felt that this kind of technology "mostly benefits cybercriminals"
The site Sabine mentions "web3 is doing alright" does showcase this.
Many billions of $ of assets stolen by hackers.
Yes like fiat doesnt benefit criminals... Specially bankers they are all saints, crypto has a shady side but fiat dark side is even shadier... Specially if we talk about central bankers these are the ones that are stealing the most money.
Lots of other respected figures in software engineering have been critical of it too, including Bruce Schnier, one of the biggest experts on cryptography and security out there.
Commercial VR has been around since the 90s as video games, but it had the same issues it still has. The majority of people, like 70-80%, that use VR become physically ill with a range of symptoms similar to sea sickness or food poisoning, and like sea sickness, you can try to treat the symptoms, but it doesn't stop until you stay off the VR for a while.
Those percentages could be true for the first generation of VR or current "cheap" VR: moments with low framerate (
@ That's what they said to justify more development, but it has not helped, if anything, the smoother and realer it is, the more sick the person becomes. From a VR dev standpoint, that's probably why meta has its weird aesthetic and no legs, trying to decrease the very common physical reaction.
Yea, no.
Most people can overcome the notion sickness just by practicing.
I had to slowly increase how much I could use mine.
I'd go further than that. As long as we need to wear headgear reminiscent of a bad Flash Gordon movie to use VR, it will NEVER go mainstream. That is my firm belief anyway. Something like sunglasses and earbuds might have a chance, but even that may not be the case.
@@JM-zg2jg yes, like motion/sea sickness, a few people can get past it, most can't, but even if most could, following metas long term plan and making something a required technology that makes even 10 - 20% of the population violently ill and always will, like motion sickness, is not a good idea.
The goal of block-chain I gather is to prevent counterfeit currency of a certain kind being produced by someone. It may do that, but it doesn't prevent alternative currency of a different kind being produced. There is an infinite number of different currencies that can be made.
And these copy currencies have all no value at all. Value is created by demand, not supply.
That is pretty much what Blockchain does. But distributed storage and processing uses vast amounts of power. The internet/web consumes around 7% of world electricity production.
@@marcussmorisha1738 True. They are better off collecting toys or Magic game cards.
As a professional music producer, working in LA for fourteen years, and an artist, blockchain technology has changed everything for me and those around me. With major companies like sportify and apple music giving 0.003 cents a stream (1,000,000 = $1500), the ability to sell ones digital art (music, video, poetry, collectables, tickets, etc) peer to peer without a third party company is a HUGE HUGE HUGE improvement. This technology is still in its early stages, it's 1995 in web3 right now, but I will be selling and pushing all artists to sell their own art, at their own price, on a public distributed ledger from here on out.
I am confused. You seem to saying that blockchains changed everything, but the talk about benefits in future tense. So did you already benefit from blockchains ? What part of your work are they ?
@@dmitripogosian5084 Yes! I have benefited greatly, recently paying off my credit cards and bills with money I have made selling my art on eth. I am Native American, Comanche, and have been working on creating more modern native music and art. I have made more money, this and the last year, selling my music and videos on eth than I have the last couple of years from ASCAP and BMI combined. Look into major labels like Warner Music Group and you can see how they are focusing their artists to create new eth marketplaces. The ability for any artist to sell their art, cryptographically, peer to peer, has changed/is changing the economy of the music industry. I would also point to the recent (highly successful) drops on eth from Louis Viton and Prada, this is the future of every industry. If you want my discography just google "ProducedByTippie".
@@dmitripogosian5084 I doubt they're even a musician. Most actual artists are well aware of how bullshit all this stuff is, many having been victims of it.
It's like that guy on your street who feels compelled to tell you all about his new "smart" car's high-performance engine, self-driving features, leather seats, etc. etc. while you nod absently, biding time until you can jump in your generic car to go to the shops and pick up some groceries.
Web 3.0 is a giant hive-mind example of "mistaking the map for the place" - or, to put it in more mundane language - when a person needs to use the toilet they don't concern themselves with the intricacies of the plumbing.
Wow! Great saying. Imma gonna steal that 😂
The investment of high technology on NFT's reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy" 😂😢😅
It's also noteworthy that a lot of Dapps (and even the existence of sketchy internet money) don't really require the blockchain to exist or do what it does, and the chain itself is quite centralized
Yep, the concept of decentralization makes sense and it's successfully deployed in the real world (see torrenting, Tor, Mastodon, etc) but that's been around for decades. Some of this stuff predates even web 2.0, calling it "a new form of internet" or whatever is incredibly misleading and only scammers and their victims would think of this seriously. In this case, it's hard to distinguish between perpetrators and victims, which is probably why it's so hard to get anything definitive done about it.
Lot of the web3 is a scam but not all of it and the crypto currencies came to stay, people in "currently" developed countries wont understand the real usage of this but dont worry you will understand later if you live long enought is just matter of time for your country to become corrupt and then you will understand.
Some dapps may not need web3 indeed and are overhyped. But the blockchain at its core is absolutely not centralized. It's also not comparable to other decentralized apps like mastadon.
The core idea of the blockchain is that you don't have to rely on a trusted party, or even any party at all, to be able to determine which version of the chain is the correct one.
If you have 2 versions of a "glorified excel sheet", of which one claims I spent all my money on a car, and another one claims I spent it all on a boat, how can you tell which one is the correct one without trusting a central party to keep the record? This is the double spending problem and that is what the blockchain will fix without the need of a central party. That is the essential part what's missing in the video.
I like Sabine, but this is a major flaw in her explanation about web3.
@@Anankin12 For that matter "the cloud" is nothing new. We used to call it server-side services (as opposed to client-side services). But by making it seem shiny and buzz-worthy you had a marketing tool to excite investors to throw money into it so they could get in on the ground floor of 'The Next Big Thing' they didn't understand.
What happens is people become even faster and looser with their personal data because it's secured by something that "no one understands, so how can it be stolen, right?"
Web3 without blockchain is just... shittier internet. With blockchain, it's still shittier internet. :)
One important adjective I didn't hear is "uncensorable". That's the biggest feature of blockchain. Not much mention of mining/hashrate & how that protects and decentralizes the data. It's not just a bunch of people "agreeing" to have consensus, it comes from the cost of the utilization of resources (energy). You can use the blockchain right now to communicate publicly or privately with other people in a way that cannot be easily censored.
Talking about DeFi while displaying the sign than says "road to Nowhere" is peak German humor
12:45 No, it sounds like a reinvention of capitalism, not communism. If a "member" is just a wallet with a vote coin, then people with more money can open more wallets to purchase coins to vote with, and then have voting power and influence proportional to their wealth.
ok
What does this have to do with quadratic funding or quadratic voting? Did you find one example of a governance mechanism and think that's the only thing to come out of crypto?
lol, you don't communism huh?
@@remain___ An example of voting by wallet? There are districts in Delaware where LLCs can vote, and one person can set up as many LLCs as they can afford and vote with each of them.
@@Wib0 Voting by wallet in a moneyless society wouldn't make sense. It's more reflective of what we currently have, which makes sense because the people building these systems are often anarcho-capitalists.
I don't hate the ideas behind web3. In particular I like open source. That said the fact of the matter is that below the surface are con men. It's kind of like a cult, they may have some pretty ideals but those ideals aren't actually what the cult is about.
The world turns into one big kindergarten where adults play games and collect colorful pictures of kittens, and they'll call it work...
Hi Sabine,
Considering the Blockchain, and the issue you raised a while ago about rating researchers and research article: Is it possible that the Etherium platform would be used to run two conjugated currencies: One for researchers grading the the other for research articles (Researchers grading is influenced by the quality of their papers, and the quality of the papers is influenced by the rating of the peer reviewers).
Or you could just have signed reviews (researchers already are organized) and use standard graph analysis.
Sabine's next video? Non aggression principle
can we go back to physics......
Did you watch the video?
Non-aggression principle... you're not thinking of applying are you?
The average user also doesn't care if their state is a democracy or a dictatorship as long as the dictatorship is not harassing them too much.
Democracy leads to totalitarianism. So our choices are totalitarianism or dictatorship? I'll take the former U.S. Republican, which is dead.
Problem is a dictatorship WILL harass them all too much, eventually. No one outside of the elite in-group will be spared. At that point, your theory fails. People realize what's what in the long term, if not the short.
Or that the democracy isn't harassing them too much.
That used to be true, but I think the majority of people these days want to be controlled and told what to do. Look at all the people SCREAMING for free money, free healthcare, free college, free food, unlimited users on their Netflix accounts, on and on. Most people are worthless parasites.
a lot of good things happening in blockchain aren't that well known because they're only of interest in niches or commercial circles. One i know is te-food doing end to end food traceability.
As an active programmer from "before the internet" I've worked with networking software through all of its permutations, and evolution is the keyword throughout its history. The Internet grew out of earlier networks (ARPANET etc) and is defined by the software, and specifically the Internet Protocols used, not the hardware. WWW is a loose convention for implementing a SUBSET of the Internet protocols, that are "document & media" oriented, with http being a primary focus, but not the sole constituent. In prehistoric days, when the internet's future was less clear, our networking hardware was more "protocol agnostic" and supported multiple networking options - i.e. same hardware supporting different networks.
As an active web developer for the last 3 years, a question to you - the old timer, what do you think of current web3 infra/app space? Personally I see potential but fail to connect the dots how we can standardize, say, an identification solution if the market is not necessarily requesting it at present time. I mean, sure, marketing works and a lot of money is being poured by VC's but so far I don't really see it. Do you?
We live in the physical world. Real assets are physical. Even physical currency can fail if a country becomes insolvent. Our digital involvement in the web must be linked back to something tangible or it isn't actually an asset. If it can be oopsed into oblivion, did it have real value in the first place?
I won't be dupped into taking my real value and placing it into something that can effectively be turned off. "If you can't hold it, you don't own it."
That's a factual lie. Everything you own is conceptual, specifically jurisprudential. You do not own your house or car physically. There's a piece of document that you have, that records your ownership, then there's usually similar piece of document held in archive, and lastly an entry in government's database. Nothing of that is physical. It can super easily be turned off, by destroying those documents and that entry in registry. It can super easily be stolen, by changing those documents to show that it belongs to me and then calling police to seize my lawful assets.
And yes, blockchain is factually more secure to store those entries in the database, as the odds of cracking it are less than of scenario above.
@@jaazz90 I'll agree that the documentation regarding ownership of those assets is based on an idea. That idea isn't physical. That is true. My physical property under my control is, however, much harder to take than something like cryptocurrency that if the system goes down catastrophically I'm left with nothing. I won't put my value in the digital world. It's too susceptible to failure. My land and home are not.
@@jaazz90 Oh yeah, blockchain is secure, uhm..., well... until someone gets majority vote and can do whatever they want to it.
@@piranhaofserengheti4878 it is more secure than what we have now, lol. You do realize no one needs a majority vote to mess with registers for example, only a medium-sized conspiracy? We quite literally have things like TITLE INSURANCE, which is artifact and only exists because of inefficiencies. Also nothing about majority or the way you think about it in blockchain is set in stone.
@@jaazz90 It is secure if you guarantee that this particular blockchain 1. can't be compromised and does not have any implementation flaws and 2. will be still around in 50 years time. Until you can I'll stick with paper and notaries, thanks.
If there is a "contract" dispute on Web3... what legal agency has oversight?... or... does the BlockChain Collective take a "vote"?
Smart contracts… either the contract is satisfied or it is not.
None. Theoretically you could write contracts that settle disputes, and give the oversight powers to specified agency. It's code, so you can code anything, but you have to code it, with specified order and rules. Then again it's pointless in principle, as those contracts are automated and autoenforced, there shouldn't be any disputes in the first place.
unlike real America, a promise can't be broken in blockchain... that is why Defi is the future... no more middleman, money printers, scandals and worse robbing people
@@jaazz90 There will always be a dispute about reality.
A contract could use a jury of anonymous hired peers, trusted by some trust model to fulfill some requirement of reliability to, resolve them.
@@jaazz90 And then blockchain bros with their smart contracts get slapped in the face by real world legal system, something they did not think about living in their imaginary world.
You should do VPNs next... because they don't actually do what your advertising partners are telling you. They're about as useless as blockchains - except for the region / movies issue. They don't actually add security (except in very niche use cases, but not the kind your viewers would know about or be able to take advantage of).
It’s a layer of indirection. That’s all. What did you think it was?
The only things VPNs are good for are hiding your browsing data from your network administrators and pirating games and movies.
@@sethgrissman6833 it plays an important role in places where freedom of speech is tightly controlled. The technology does some good occasionally.
@@GearForTheYear That's not what they we designed for. The purpose of a VPN was to extend a network to a remote location such that you could, for example, print from a computer in one office to a printer in another office - or access a SAMBA file share. Virtual Private Network just means "extending the LAN over a WAN bridge". This was all before TLS was adopted as a network primitive.
@@coolaj86 the point is that they do add security for people who need it - indirection is a form of security. Not a great one, I’ll give you that, but it’s better than nothing. I’m usually the first to criticize marketing departments but they’re not wrong on this. What’s wrong with advertising about the most widely-usable feature of VPNs? Nobody is going to buy exclusive access to an arbitrary local network. If you’re setting it up for your business, you really shouldn’t be using NordVPN as there’s much better options geared for that type of usage.
It's like schoolchildren playing at recess making up their own rules in a fantasy universe, and assigning 'value' to it.
The two essential terms missing from this summary are “greed” and “pyramid scheme”, since that’s where the real common denominator lies.
We can't say that blockchains or consensus mechanisms are a pyramid scheme. Also Bank scandals are a lot more and a lot bigger
Even as someone in tech, web3 always seemed strange. The amount of resources to host an internet in a decentralized way is insane and definitely not feasible.
thats absolutely wrong
web3 may be strange but your words also. host “an internet”? in a decentralized way? The intenet already is decentralized, not hosted by any individual., and it’s not inefficient or insane.
I suspect you mean using blockchain to store and service content.
@@abj136 We all rely on just a handful of DNSes.
Torrent say : Hi
@@Izaltinodsouza and it works perfectly fine even wthout blockchain!
It’s a great day when I see you have finally cracked 1 Million subscribers. Congratulations!
one week too late, but Yes
If something is hyped so much, I immediately think it's scam.
Web3 - determined to create solutions for problems that don't exist whilst at the same time parting you from your money.
Or much worse solutions to problems that are already solved
You just identified the main use case: a mechanism to alleviate people of their money, while making them think they were investing.
People always say web3 is solving problems that don't exist as if the internet has no problems. As if no other technology on the web is full of scammers and swindlers separating people from their money but might still have some valid use cases.
Blockchains may or may not be the solution we need for the internet and society as a whole, but to say they're not attempting to address real problems is willful ignorance.
"A turf war between the wealthy and the ultra wealthy" "Buy in now. Buy in early. And you could be the high tech future boot" "The line can only go up" - Dan Olson - Line goes up
So like the apple watch then? Nobody asked for it. Nobody needed it and yet...
I've always considered the beginning of Web 2.0 as the late 1990s when commercial entities took over the web sell stuff. The commercial web.
I.e. made the web easy and all the moronic normies ruined it.
A lot of people were bored at home in 2021 and these topics proliferated on the Clubhouse app like a runaway Amway meeting. The interesting uses of blockchain are things like medicine production and deliveries to reduce tampering and theft, title industries like home and auto, replacing systems like a social security number or other identification, and additional authentication for things like art pieces and collectibles. Like an Elvis Presley guitar from the estate including an nft from their identifying blockchain address in addition to other providence.
Most of what you call the interesting use cases don't work either though.
Anything that is inherently dependent on centralized entities already doesn't make sense - blockchains make enormous engineering tradeoffs to have a particular kind of decentralization + permissionless auth ("trustless" though I argue this term is highly misleading).
Same for anything that requires linking to the real world, as that must be done by trusted parties.
That already invalidates pretty much everything you listed.
@@jmiller6066 you have to think about it for more than two seconds, and you can see why pharma has already implemented their own private blockchains to prevent counterfeiting, theft and more from production to delivery. Go ahead and tell them yourself that you did your own research and they should stop.
A good use of blockchain would be digital Lab Journals, digitally signed with UTC from NTP and encrypted with your public key. That way it’s visible to you, and time based to the rest of the world in case it’s challenged on who discovered it first….
That is actually a worthwhile usecase
How often is this an issue?
@@hherpdderp could be for patents
Maybe, but I don't think there's any real need for blockchain for that. You can just have a centralised, trusted hash signing service. Send them a hash of your work, and they send back (and maybe publish) a digitally signed certificate that declares that they saw the hash before a stated date.
@@barneylaurance1865 that makes sense as well. What about internationally recognised patents? Whenever a patent is registered im country 1, all other countries also register it or something... but it seems ljke even that could be done without having painful stuff like blockchains...
I really enjoy the critical perspectives. A lot of channels in this space are very optimistic so the additional context is definitely needed.
Still Sabine left out a major core property of the blockchain: The idea that you don't have to trust a central party or any party to be able to tell which version of the blockchain is correct. You can't do that with "glorified excel sheets" (4:33) alone. It's not popularity that makes it revolutionary, it's the tech that fixed the double spending problem.
@@Jopie65you have no idea what you’re talking about. Or if you do, you hold what I believe to be a fundamentally incorrect belief that there is no need for institutions with democratic oversight. Fully decentralized trust networks are basically just attempts to replace institutions but institutions don’t need replacing.
They are optimistic because they know how much money they can make from bagholders.
@@Jopie65everything you said is wrong and would being down human society completely.
Once the government flips the switch on the financial system… until then, I don’t expect anyone to understand web3.
2:28 What's G6?
Given that consensus algorithms are less energy efficient compared with databases, the advantages of decentralization would need to be weighed against the difference in energy footprint at large scale (especially if PoW is adopted). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my take is that PoS, although less energy consuming, would not be a fair algorithm in the context of geopolitical control because the tokens necessary for staking would not be evenly or fairly distributed.
With enough validator nodes and no need of expensive hardware for it to function, I think we can have non censurable chain.
even with tornado cash on ethereum with supercentralization of the staked coin (more than 90% of validator don’t validate any transactions from it because of juridical problem in USA) this dapps still here
Now that we got the least interesting of the Internet frontiers covered (crypto and NFTs), I'm looking forward to the videos on the Semantic Web and on the Internet of Things. Y'know, the actual future of the Internet! :)
A feature of blockchain is that everything can be traced back. I fail to see how this can be used to decentraise voting, financial or medical information.
There are approches to provide some privacy in blockchain but they require centralised operators. And if you trust a company to keep your encryption key you may just as well let them handle the data.
For example, regarding financial decentralising: in a blockchain, essentially nobody can freeze your account. This is unlike the normal financial system.
The fact that everything can be traced back is another possible problem which I believe solutions are being worked on (such as commit and reveal mechanisms). But it does not change the fact that only a blockchain allows you to do finance which does not depend on a single entity such as the government or banks.
@@assaf The other side of that coin is that when you lose access to your wallet you lost all your money. If I forget my password to internet banking I can just walk to the bank with my ID and get access back, thank you.
@@assaf "But it does not change the fact that only a blockchain allows you to do finance which does not depend on a single entity such as the government or banks" : well, theres gold and paper cash
@@assaf "nobody can freeze your account": Most people don't worry about their accounts getting frozen. Only people who are doing egregiously illegal things do.
@@assafThe fact that it doesn't depend on a government and bank means that there is no way to return your money in case you get scammed, robbed or accidentally send it to the wrong account. There is also no way to get the money in case you die and your family doesn't have the wallet. Who wants that apart from criminals? There is a reason why everyone has a bank account rather than having a tresor full of cash/gold, and Blockchain won't change that.
Hey Sabine, have you seen Vaush’s response to your trans video (and also your capitalism video)? It would be interesting to see what you think about his rebuttals.
Thanks for saying about difference between Web3 and Web3.0.
I didn't lookt much about Web 3.0 but it looks very cool: If I understand correctly it is like google drive and "login via google" in different services without actually being forced to use google. At it core it is open source and can be self hosted (or you can use some providers if you want). So it is kind of standarization of logging in and integration with different servcices.
Also worth saying is that for example buying nft of certain art (picture) is like buying exclusive "card" with written on it that you own this art without actually having that art. There is a lot of "problems":
- this art is still stored somewhere on standard server, and not in blockchain,
- anyone can download or screenshot this art and have it,
- almost anyone can sell you that "card", so there is no real point,
- it maybe have some value when this card was selled to you by the person that created it, but it is still just a "card".
It was mentioned in video, but I think that it should be more emphasized.
Don't those same problems apply to regular digital art though? I'm not a particularly big fan of NFTs, but it's not a unique problem.
@@mileswithau It depends what you mean by regular digital art. Pictures on internet have licenses which can guatantee some rights. Like: you can not just use pictures from shutterstock for commercial use withut paying for them, because license forbids that, and I guess they can sue you.
Also, nft is not equal to giving you rights to picture. As I said, even I can give you nft of mona lisa. And unless I am the creator of art (or have rights to it) and unless I specify that nft is equal to giving you some rights then it can be totally meaningless
@@Daniel_VolumeDown But that doesn't actually prevent me from obtaining a copy on a technical level, even if it is of dubious legality, no?
@@mileswithau that's true; you can always screenshot
I don't think most people do want VR. Not for regular use, anyway. It'll be similar to 3d movies, in that every few years there'll be a push to make it the next big thing, but it'll be an economic failure that people drop quickly.
AR will take off, though.
Yes, AR actually beeing usefull is the reason this will be successful.
I don't see doom and gloom in VR, but I will agree that it will likely remain an unpopular niche
I think the reason VR isn't taking off is due to it currently being expensive. I'd buy and play Half-Life Alyx if VR was cheaper.
@@Laff700 Or if there was at least more software to justify the costs.
I think most people do, they just don't know they do.
Tell me the average football fan or concert lover wouldn't love to essentially be at the events they couldn't afford in real life.
Tell me it wouldn't be awesome to go to national parks in VR that are on the other side of the world.
Not everyone can save up hundreds of dollars, and take the time off for everything they want to do, but with VR they could do it a lot cheaper.
Congrats for reaching 1M subscribers Sabine! Well-deserved!
"The Internet is the hardware, the WWW is the software." That's an interesting way to put it but I'd say it's an over-simplification and partly misleading. A router that routes IP (Internet Protocol) packets is usually going to be doing that via software. Routers are, for the most part, small regular computers with cheap processors, a little bit of RAM, and a simple operating system.
I think a more accurate way to put it would be: The Internet is a network for general-purpose global data transmission (using hardware and software) and the WWW is a specific application of that network: using it to transmit websites. Other applications would be BitTorrent, VoIP, various instant-messaging apps, and so on.
The elephant in the room when it comes to blockchain and decentralised transaction recording is an exponential increase in energy and bandwidth consumption. Fedrated systems can only maintain the integrity of any data they record by constantly communicating creation, update and deletion information with eachother, this leads to a heavy increase in background traffic as data is copied back and forth across the internet in order to keep peer systems in sync. It's effectively database mirroring at a global level with energy and bandwidth usage distributed geographically... perhaps that's why the idea is so popular: it's actually just corporate imperialism through distributed resource expenditure.
Good video on high-level summary of user-facing use-cases people are talking about
I think topics like zero-knowledge cryptography and autonomous worlds are two key areas in that maybe have the most overlap between the two definitions
Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the academic side of things too (most cryptography research is funded by web3 projects these days)
Interesting suggestion, thanks, I will keep that in mind!
I liked of your suggestion!!!
❤
Good suggestion!!!
I love this subject
The reason why Ethereum engineers called their work web3, was because regular websites accesing financial system directly was not a thing. Not because it was impossible but because financial system doesn't allow it. At one point they made their own, independent financial system that can be accessed by websites and calling it web3 seemd like a straight forward idea. Back then noone knew it will devolve into the cluster crap of NFTs, DAOs and ICOs we have today
What irritates me about Ethereum is that as far as I can tell it is just a blockchain with blocks treated as real objects with methods to implement the "smart contract." Congratulations, you just reinvented Object Oriented Programming. This is what happens when you put finance types with programmers and they are trying to make something new and profitable by renaming something released by PARC in 1980.
Then they add in the hippie model of open source computing and lots of technobabble hype.
I think a good framing of the webs evolution starts with one way data transmission- fancy telegram and websites,
Two way data transmission- user inputs to websites/servers.
Real time p2p interactivity - session sharing like real time collaborative tools Google docs Microsoft TeamViewer zoom etc and p2p transfer protocols like torrents etc
I think emphasis should be on ownership of data, centralized on a personal portable storage device is a thing
Creating a catchy thumbnail is a great stuff to learn and i think you nailed in it! 😮
I love your videos Sabine. I especially appreciate the fact that you do not put any background music during your monologue (unlike many other youtubers) which can be distracting. Keep up the great work.
One thing you didn’t mention is that blockchain uses A LOT more processing power than traditional methods for the same result, so it has climate implications too.
Definitely the case for Proof of Work, much less so for Proof of Stake. Not that I care, I’d like to see both crash out of existence due to the widespread fraud.
That's probably because she knows you're wrong in that assumption. PoS and zK concepts along with layer 2 and 3 additions, all decimate the required processing power. And that thing you write: "for the same result"... erhm, the same result would be "decentralized and architecturally secure". We have no other way to secure data the way blockchain enables. Sure, some stargazers believe that quantum computers can break that security - but as system with more qubits are popularized, so will the security be heightened with the same technology.
Only PoW based crypto currencies are vulnerable, in that 51% attack is a real risk. However, blockchain is much more than simply cryptocurrencies.
Not just climate. Costs. Higher costs.
i muted the word on X. I hate it so much. This is the only video with the word web3 in it I could ever see myself watching. A healthy dose of skepticism and bluntness.
Web 1.0 was static as you say. HTML. Web 2 added server side scripting for interoperability with the database, and local scripting to perform basic operations. XHTML+CSS+DOM (Document Object Model). HTML5. Web3 is to be applications within the browser (regardless of the underlying Operating System). I use Web 3 every day in the form of Google Docs, easy EDA (electronic circuit design), and Easel by inventables. All are applications running in a Chrome Browser. I can run them on a $20 Raspberry Pi or an $80,000 workstation. IMHO we crossed the bridge with the first JavaScript crypto suites running in the browser. IMHO, LastPass is an impressive specimen of web 3.0.
I was there. I saw the whole thing.
I was at university when the www was just taking off and have been a web developer for decades now. You are right about Web 1.0 but nothing about Web 2.0 is basic operations, its just dynamic pages, Vue, React, Htmx its all just more advanced Web 2.0. Those Google web apps? Web 2.0.
Web 3.0 is blockchain, which is why it's a horrible name, it doesn't build on Web 2.0, has nothing to do with it really. It's crypto and NFTs and the name is a marketing gimmic. I suppose you could do really inefficient mining in a browser if you wanted, or trade crypto on the web but the web sites aren't running off the blockchain.
Congratulations on the million subs, Sabine!
I've been doing web development professionally for 20 years and it seems obvious to me that AGI will happen sooner than semantic web where the web site owners at large supposedly start adding *correct* metadata to the content to make it easier to understand for computers. As long as the content is understandable for humans, it will be understandable for AGI, too, and no extra effort is needed to add semantic markup.
And the technology already exists for that and is so 2.0.
No one knows when/if AGI will happen.
@@sluggo206 Exactly. For "web 2.0" (or simply HTML5 if you don't need the marketing speech) it's called microformats. It's basically simply re-using HTML5 attribute called "class" and defining explicit meaning for some common words such as "summary", "location" etc. The idea is that authors may accidentally use the correct word and the markup makes semantic sense even if you're not using microformats parser.
However, whenever I see microformats in real world, it seems to have about 50% change of being incorrect usage even though it's obvious from the context that the intent was to use microformats instead of accidentally using the same word.
As a result, I expect any metadata in general to have slim to none possibility to be correct because use of microformats is rare and even in those rare cases when it's used, it's wrong half the time.
@@timetraveler_0 That's true that we don't yet know when AGI will happen. My current guess is around year 2030. If AI research gets equally good funding as during last couple of years, I think it's going to happen.
The only question is how much electricity you need to run human level AGI. If you need a supercomputer to run one instance of AGI, it will be used for AI research only because it will be much cheaper to employ humans.
In long run AGI will be cheaper to run than human minds, of course. But we're nowhere close to that yet.
right on man. my spidey sense is we have been in the space for similar amounts of time. ungodly numbers of O'Reilly books, vi/vim/emacs whether you love it or hated it. wrestling with syncronous/asyncronous calls you had to write yourself. all that good stuff.
web3 never solved a problem a user wanted, it solved a problem a producer wanted. web2 solved the, "i don't want to refresh a page, just show me problem". java tried to do that on the model and view, and failed spectacularly web3 throws away all the stuff a user actually wants--a good experience, low latency, ways of communicating, expression, and assigns a value to it. to you can just pay for interacting. Yes, you creating a thought or interacting costs you money. It _kinda_ works for only fans, sorta kinda, but not really. remove whales, and web3 is just pointless.
what's next? the language and operating system of the internet is changing. for the better, i think. you don't have to force producers and consumers to create the semantic web, the foundation and frontier models do that for you. then for economics and commerce it just goes back to supply and demand.
at best, 5% of people are the libertarians that want to monetize every word they say. 95% rightly say, get off my lawn :) And, this comes from a guy that likes solving sboxes, invents stegnography for fun, and has Bruces Applied Cryptography within reach. Anyway, i'm just rambling, you are absolutely right. Increase yo' entropy and beware canaries!
Thanks for the info Sabine!
Finally a video that doesn’t confused Web3.0 and Web3
It's the crypto bros who made it confusing in the first place..
Blockchain is like glue sniffing.
Some people really like it - normal people don‘t.
Dude, this kind of comparison is uncalled for.
Like bro, what did I do to you, why are you insulting me?
I like to sniff glue but that does mean that you have to put me at the same level as crypto investors!
@@user-cg7gd5pw5b😂😂
Interesting discussion as usual. As an internet user through the 80s/90s I remember the pre web days when you actually needed to know how the internet works. It’s still all based on old protocols (TCP etc)now running on fast infrastructure. Knowing how unreliable and insecure the layers 2 and 3 protocols really are makes me very wary about financial dealing or even personal info on the web. Also, web providers often use “deep packet inspection” tools to monitor traffic traversing their networks, so no real privacy.
The point of the OSI stack is to keep the lower levels simple. Increasingly secure and reliable protocols are built from simpler primitives; and even then, there are security features available for layer 2 and 3 services, especially with modern technology.
Old technology, while it can sometimes be synonymous with being bad, is not necessarily so. TCP works, and is reasonably simple to implement and run.
Modern infrastructure has gotten very, very, freakishly reliable, even down to the base of the OSI stack.
I wonder what the effect of Web3 and its, I'd say, apparent sustainable model, would be over the current ads oriented internet and data management issues.
I think there are applications for blockchain data storage but not for the average user and it's not web anything.
Most applications of this kind of thing are backend uses that no one ever directly interacts with unless they are creating a report or checking a transaction.
Great video, thanks! If I were to place money on a coming Web update (which I wouldn't do anyway), it would be on Berners-Lee's vision of Web 3.0. As you imply, blockchain tech is just another supposedly sexy repurposing of standard, centralised technologies. No, thanks. Cheers!
Both 3 and 3.0 are bad in my opinion.
Something different is needed.
But it will be hard to find nice name for it.
A good overview of the topic. Glad that you have seen the nonsense going around with all this and called them out on it as usual. You still got it. :-)
The cool thing is, she didn't go for low hanging fruit or punch below the belt, the truth was enough to insult the whole idea.
🔥 UGLY FACT 🔥 People in power (Legacy finance, business families & royal mafias) will NEVER allow true decentralization to take place🤏 If they sniff any true success in this arena, they will plot another 9/11 to use the shock environment to criminalize true freedom seekers🤏 This is why Web3, DAO & DeFi promise r too good to be possible or realistic in our unjust world 🤏
That is one of the silliest things I have heard of. Buying and selling cats. Cryptokitties. Of course they really aren't kitties.
I remember when you could create a web page with a text editor. I even used the first web browser, Lynx, which was quite archaic.
I still do
This is still how websites are developed, outside of no-code solutions.