For the site you mentioned:

- The hostname is resolved from Cloudflare's authoritative DNS nameservers

- It has a TLS cert issued by Cloudflare

- The backend IP resolves to Cloudflare's server range

- It is a pretty standard React front end served entirely from https://app.uniswap.org

- I can't say about the compute, but it's pretty obvious that the site isn't running on 1/5,000 the power of a Raspberry Pi for $250 a second (aka Smart Contract).

So, what part of it is distributed and resilient to takedowns?

The smart contract is. It's like https://xkcd.com/932/ . The static JS being served by the site is just a poster that could be hung up anywhere else. Even if that URL is taken down, your money is still safe and sound on the blockchain. You can still sign transactions and interact with the smart contracts, get your liquidity out, etc., so long as you have access to any part of the Ethereum network.

There is no money or smart contracts involved in my scenario. I just want to host a random site.

Put another way – is there a use case for Web3 which doesn't involve touting Web3? What is the "killer app" for the average user who isn't obsessed with crypto/blockchain?

> I just want to host a random site.

Then just do that. You're neither the kind of user nor the kind of developer who would want to use web3.

> What is the "killer app" for the average user who isn't obsessed with crypto/blockchain?

What's the "killer app" of Tor for the average user who isn't obsessed with privacy? Nothing. The whole point is privacy. If you're okay with clearnet tracking, then just use the clearnet.

What I don't understand is this refusal to understand that there's actual value in blockchain technology for some people. I get that you don't need or want it. Why is it so hard for you to understand that others do need or want it?

If you're actually curious, and not just looking to status signal, I listed the apps that I've found to be most groundbreaking here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588151 .

Honestly you couldnt explain at all what could be interesting usecase and resulted to saying "its not for you". Whats killer app of TOR? Well its TOR - its pretty clear proposition even to mainstream users it will be instantly obvious - the privacy is the feature.

> Honestly you couldnt explain at all what could be interesting usecase and resulted to saying "its not for you".

I've explained again and again in other comments. As did the parent comment of this whole thread. It's really not that hard to understand, but there's nothing I can do if you don't want to understand.

> Well its TOR - its pretty clear proposition even to mainstream users it will be instantly obvious - the privacy is the feature.

Really? Have you ever met a non-technical user who said they wanted to use Tor for anything?

Regardless, that's entirely besides the point. So what if a mainstream user doesn't understand why version control would be useful for their Excel sheets? The rest of us carry on using version control just fine.

> I've explained again and again in other comments. As did the parent comment of this whole thread. It's really not that hard to understand, but there's nothing I can do if you don't want to understand.

Look, we all know how MLMs work. Just say that you’re finding reasons for other people to pay money for your tokens rather than accusing people of not understanding. None of your comments have included a compelling sales pitch and it’s not the reader’s obligation to help you improve it.

There's no compelling sales pitch because I'm not trying to make one. I think there's already too much dumb money in it already, and I sure don't want yours either. Those of us who want or need it will continue to use it. Those of us who don't... well then, just don't.

You're looking for something that just isn't there, so you can sneer at it and show your snide superiority. Go somewhere else for that sort of validation, because you're not getting it from me.

Why are you being so rude to people who just want to foster a real conversation with you about cryptocurrency? When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you", and start making personal attacks. It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game.

These people are hardly trying to foster a real conversation. Person I was responding to implied I'm trying to rope him into an MLM scheme. I respond in kind, and I'm the one being rude?

> When you're backed into a corner you can't resort to "it's not for you"

I think your bias is showing. I'm hardly backed into a corner. From my perspective, I've only ever stated hard facts. They're the ones backed into a corner by these facts, and all they can ever muster up is "Oh but I don't find that useful. My use case is an app that literally only myself uses."

It's like wading into a conversation about Spark and saying it's overkill when you just want to process a hundred line CSV file. No duh, that's not what it's meant for. It gets real old when commenter after commenter -- and often even the same commenter -- misses the same point again and again.

And I'll say, that includes you. You're backed into a corner and unable to name any alternatives here [1], so you resort to criticizing my tone instead.

> It frankly makes your case look paper-thin and further reinforces the idea that cryptocurrency is a chump's game.

I wasn't looking to convince anyone in particular, and that includes you. It seems you're more swayed by tone than by facts. So be it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753

Your hard facts are really just reframing a conversation that time and time again you've failed to engage with. People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general, and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM). When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor". When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways". What people want to see is how Web3 iterates on the internet as it exists right now. You've provided a few implementation details, and repeatedly stated that it's different, but at no point have you produced a compelling refutation to the idea that, as a concept, it is a scam. Web3 is a bubble, even you're willing to admit as much; "there's already too much dumb money in it already" you claimed. Furthermore, you're arguing for a level of utility that doesn't exist out of the context of transferring money to wildly unstable assets. This is a textbook scam, and your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms.

Web3 is marketing itself as something it is not. You're using a combination of expectation management and goalpost shifting to refute that, and people have called you on it. I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place.

> People are calling Web3 a fraud; a system where value is derived simply from the demand of crypto in general

The supply of ledger space is limited. When demand for that space not only goes up, but keeps going up, what does economics tell us happens to the price? I keep giving example after example of what people use this ledger space for, but all anyone every says is "Oh, but it's just moving tokens around." I have yet to see anyone say how that's any different from the stock market just moving fiat around. Deflection, deflection, deflection. Who's refusing to engage with the conversation now?

> and purely serves to benefit people who invested first (like MLM)

That is simply not true, and I've given example after example of the use cases that benefit the people using the chain. But after every explanation, you still resort to "Oh but I don't use it, so it must be an MLM." You haven't engaged at all with any of my points, you just keep repeating your own. Who's reframing the conversation now?

> When confronted about the possibility of all of it being a scam, your only response was "caveat emptor".

When confronted about the possibility of any single smart contract being a scam, my only response is "caveat emptor," yes. Because that's the whole point. You can't have censorship resistance without having this phenomenon.

But when it comes to the possibility of the whole thing being a scam, that's clearly ridiculous and as I've said, I've refuted it many times over. The next few sentences of your comment are just more of the same, so I'm not going to bother refuting every individual sentence.

> When people say that's stupid, you resort to "well that's fine, I didn't want your money anyways".

Yes, all people ever do is to call it "stupid" without backing their argument up. You said it yourself.

> This is a textbook scam

And by implication, I'm one of the scammers then, aren't I? And you expect me to respond to such accusations politely and demurely?

> your rhetoric will perpetually be at odds with the rest of the discussion unless you engage them on their own terms.

"On their own terms" meaning that we accept the premise that it's a scam? So you don't want a discussion, you just want me to affirm your pre-existing beliefs.

> I can imagine that you don't see yourself as "losing" these arguments, since you haven't even responded to them in the first place.

I notice you still haven't named any alternative technologies in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29588753 . You say "decentralization doesn't need the blockchain," implying that the blockchain doesn't really do much for decentralization. I respond asking for any other alternative that does what crypto does, and gave an example of a major decentralized platform that was only possible because of crypto. Once again, you're backed into a corner, and all you do is refuse to respond, and then deflect and project your own loss onto me. I rest my case.

I’m looking for something useful, not validation. It’d be great if there was something to show for all of that money and time.

And this is something very useful. There's been a lot to show for the last decade of crypto development.

It's just not useful for you. Which I understand. Not everything is for everyone. But you seem incapable of understanding that it's useful for many who are not you.

> But you seem incapable of understanding that it's useful for many who are not you.

Then why can't you provide examples which are useful for things other than moving cryptocurrency tokens around? When the web started, sure some of the pages were talking about the web and how to build new things with it, but most of the things people were putting online were using the web to make were related to their hobbies, professional interests, politics, etc. and simply using it as a communications medium.

More crassly, why do I not hear anyone saying it's useful unless they have a personal financial stake in me buying their tokens? The closest past event I remember seeing was during the dotcom era when day-traders would talk up stocks without being able to say what a company did or why they were a good bet.

> Then why can't you provide examples which are useful for things other than moving cryptocurrency tokens around?

I provided, among other things, examples of trading tokens that track real world assets. Or what, you think the stock market isn't actually useful because it doesn't do anything useful other than moving money around?

Do you know why Ethereum gas fees are so high? Because lots of people are using Ethereum. Obviously because they find it useful for -- yes -- moving tokens around and whatnot.

Again, you're obviously not someone who would find it useful or even interesting. But seriously, how is it so hard for you to understand that the world isn't just you?

> More crassly, why do I not hear anyone saying it's useful unless they have a personal financial stake in me buying their tokens?

Maybe because you're not interested in the tech, so the only people who you ever get to talk to about crypto are the shills? Because that has obviously not been my experience, which has been a lot more technical.

If you just want to store and host files like a website, there's a few projects in that vein that I know of - Arweave (https://www.arweave.org/), IPFS (https://ipfs.io/), and Filecoin (https://filecoin.io/).

IMO these projects are aiming at a new form of sovereignty on the internet that doesn't/can't exist currently - the ability to have your data be permanently stored and accessible on the web. Google can decide to kill Google Photos, and every email provider on the planet can delete everyone's old emails if they so choose. It's unlikely, yes, but the ability to put something on the internet permanently surely has some novel value to it, even if just as an open building block to something bigger than the sum of its parts.

A massive part of what's going on right now in the crypto space is people experimenting with these new protocols and tools like smart contracts and DAOs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organ...) and attempting to figure out new and novel things to do with them. Web3 is a moniker du-jour to try to encompass these experiments in finance, governance, art, and collaboration.

When the internet was early, people were doing the same, and it gave rise to new forms of art, online gaming, radically different access to banking, ecommerce, and low latency, (basically) free, video calling anywhere in the world. Imagine trying to explain Twitch.tv or Facebook to someone in the early 90s when people were paying for long distance calls and stamps. The groundwork for these things was being created as people were inventing DNS, HTTP, etc etc, but in the same way that NeoPets was not the ultimate expression of online gaming (but had influence on it nonetheless), the things we're seeing today are not the ultimate expression of what "web3" will eventually be but instead a bunch of passionate people trying to figure out what revolutionary things can be built with these new unique tools.

Resources like storage and bandwidth aren’t free. People won’t pay to host strangers content for free forever, especially with the personal legal risk that entails, so you’re going to need to pay regularly to host content which isn’t both very popular and under an open license, which is the content which is most reliably replicated now at much lower cost.

Similarly, there’s a lot of mythology about content not being censorable which falls apart as soon as you think about it. People still have to follow the law in their country: if you upload a Disney movie to IPFS, their lawyers will send takedowns to everyone hosting it. Just as with other P2P services, anyone using it will be deterred by the risk of your ISPs cutting your service if you don’t comply with legal requirements but unlike its more efficient and private alternatives these services are both public (making it easier to track users) and the blockchain services handily provide a signed statement for prosecutors, which seems unlikely to be a popular feature for anyone who actually needs it.

That’s the key difference between the early internet and “web3”: those early efforts were building things people outside of that community clearly wanted but the latter is what happened when people spent a decade pumping money into cryptocurrencies in the hopes of one day becoming rich and are now desperately searching around for reasons why everyone else should pay a premium for their random numbers. It never goes well when the conversation starts with what you’d like to sell someone rather than what they need.

Sure, I generally think of these projects as experiments to try to make this “store something permanently” vision happen in reality. Just because the vision has hurdles to overcome doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying. Arguably GitHub’s Arctic Code Vault aimed to do the same thing in a different way https://archiveprogram.github.com/. I agree that the tail end support of bandwidth and storage costs for X years are obstacles for this vision but blockchains in their current form already incentivize keeping this data around and hosting the data as part of normal network operations. These projects are just trying to separate out the storage layer from the computation layer (which may be a folly, or may prove viable). The point is that there’s groups of people trying to apply these new tools in novel ways to try to give humanity better tools in some capacity, and I think that’s a fine use of resources and effort.

Have you heard of the uncensorable library project? https://www.uncensoredlibrary.com/en it aims to make some data permanent and available even in the face of Chinese censorship. Is it a panacea that’s going to scale for all data forever? Of course not, but it’s a novel approach and an interesting experiment (and look ma, no blockchain!).

If people aren't backing up their photos and emails, heck any data that they care about, it is only a matter of time until something happens to it.

But it's not on the internet permanently, it will disappear eventually at an unknown point in the future, like a dead torrent due to the lack of seeders.

Eventually everything will disappear, so this is. It quite a valid counter argument. On the other hand, there is a real chance that these protocols have a shot on enabling preservation of data for a significant amount of time - literally hundreds of years, sensorship-free, which is kind of cool.

You can have your dapp just return HTML so in this case your simple static website is hosted on the blockchain.

What is the advantage of this over a static site that is hosted on the internet in the traditional Web 1.0 way?

How much does this cost to do?

How much does this cost to update?

What does it take to remove it if you decide that no, you really don't want to have that material online anymore?