I can say the same about anything else on the internet. Keeping the servers running costs money
> Users can't spend real money to access this system so they need to convert their money to Geoffrey dollars to even access "web3" content.
You can actually access most web3 content without spending Geoffrey dollars, or US Dollars. If we're talking about public blockchains like Ethereum, it's all out in the open. By definition, it's a public ledger. IPFS data (which has nothing to do with crypto) is also very public.
> End users needed no more investment than their computer and Internet connection.
I guess some web3 websites require you to connect with a wallet, but downloading a browser extension doesn't seem very prohibitive.
So in the context of the Web Revivalist movement, how do you build stateful applications? It's great when individuals host their own DIY servers, but that doesn't really give you much stability. And in aggregate, it's even more difficult to build rich, stateful ecosystems of applications. How do you handle servers going down and APIs changing? Link rot for stateless websites is a hard enough as it is.
It doesn't, though. That's bullshit. Sharing data between web applications is not some sort of grand challenge that required new technology to solve.
This was pretty cool because all the Hic en nunc generated content over their existence is still accessible through Objkt.
Sharing data is of course possible since stone tablets, but doing it without any form of collaboration or approval is probably unique to crypto.
To the extent that crypto doesnโt require collaboration or approval, neither does Wikipedia. Or libraries.
Or, indeed, stone tablets โ Pharaoh ๐น๐๐๐ด didnโt give anyone permission to go raid his tomb, and yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unas
It depends on the level of guarantees you want for that data. If we're communicating, and you're okay with me changing my APIs, or even changing the data itself in ways we didn't previously agree upon, then you 100% don't need a blockchain. And if you don't have a lot of entities that need to coordinate on the data, then there might be an easier solution.
A lot of the blockchain boosterism I see online comes from a place of assuming that the blockchain represents a solution to a problem, and trying to work backwards from there. Avoid that.
So really when I say "applications" I'm referring specifically to other smart contracts.
It's a bunch of rent seeking bullshit on top of what could just be a web API. Storage on a blockchain is stupid expensive so there's oracles everywhere pointing to off-chain resources with zero guarantee of availability.
Blockchains aren't adding any value. They're only extracting rent and adding friction.
People have motivations besides financial incentive.
I've got a website. I'm paying for it. I make no money from it. The web exists.
A miner is just a spare computer in service of a network. Like a closet web server, or a seeder in a public torrent swarm.
A single miner can't do anything on its own so blockchain transactions require the aggregate waste of a whole network of miners to accomplish anything.
For DApps to run the network of miners runs them. They demand payment for doing so. You can run a web server in your closet free of charge, a DApp that doesn't offer incentive to miners will never run. If you foot the bill for some DApp it'll cost you orders of magnitude more than a Raspberry Pi in your closet.
Bullshit. Without miners there's no "crypto" and without payouts there's no miners. So "web3" can only exist where there's some financial incentive to run miners. Users can't spend real money to access this system so they need to convert their money to Geoffrey dollars to even access "web3" content. This is 180ยฐ from the "old web". End users needed no more investment than their computer and Internet connection. They didn't have to prop up some asshole's upline to check out the Unofficial X-Files Fan Page.