[genge]

This article is realy lazy. If you want an actually valid argument against web3, here is Tim O'Reilly's take. He is the creator of the term web2.0 and created much of what we know as open source: https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excit...

I don't understand how these types of articles can reach the front page of hackernews. A hadoop system could provide a replacement? That's like arguing a multi-threaded pc will be a replacement.

Blockchain does have a lot of hype, we can all agree there. But there's decent technology being built too. He is right in that many things are centralized, and many tools have to still be decentralized (like infura).

The thing is, things are being built to solve certain issues and we are at early stages. Wwhat serious teams want to achieve is not "decentralization", but "sufficient-decentralization". As in, you can expect for a protocol to enforce solving conflicts of interest accounting for what the majority in the protocol want. Governance is important here, and it's being dealt with. DiD will potentially allow more democracy (instead of capitalisti) decision of the rules. You have energy sector investing heavily on energy conflict resolution. There's many topics that are solved by certain features.

[stdbrouw]

The article may be lazy but this is not a very useful critique, either. "Many topics that are solved by certain features", what does that even mean?

[genge]

I provided a link to a very thoughtful critique and pointed out how it's lazy. I commented on that, I wasn't expecting on having to give a lecture on the specifics. As for the quoted part on specific, for instance a blockchain style of consensus allows for personal data to be forgotten but validated by pre-decided metrics. This allows for DiD applications. There's a lot of research and there are also non-blockchain ideas being disputed. For energy sector I'd suggest this discussion given yesterday: https://www.crowdcast.io/e/web3talk-energy

[rvz]

At least this critic in [0] knows that it is too early to get excited and he is not ignoring the technologies that are still useful that came out of many cryptocurrencies like Stellar, XRP and others.

> For example, are Ripple and Stellar more successful platforms for cross-border remittances than bank transfers, credit cards, or PayPal, in the same way that Google Maps was better than Rand McNally or first-generation GPS pioneers like Garmin? There’s some evidence that crypto is becoming a meaningful player in this market, though regulatory hurdles are slowing adoption.

That use case is still alive and valid here.

[0] https://www.oreilly.com/radar/why-its-too-early-to-get-excit...