Talk:Web3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Does this need a disambiguation? I may update this. revert if appropriate please.

Ethereum#Decentralized_finance mentions web3 which is related to DeFI Decentralized finance


? Michael Ten (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Ten and Onel5969: I think this should be either a full-blown article with citations or a section in Web 2.0. I was indeed a bit surprised to learn Web 3.0 redirected to Semantic Web after hearing the term in context of decentralized systems, so I think it'd benefit readers to discuss the competing definitions either in an article of its own or in Web 2.0. Nardog (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I really don't have preference, I was simply marking it reviewed as a valid dab page. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nardog and Onel5969: I think a disambiguation page or full blown article will be ideal for Web3. I doubt that the decentralized web is going away. I am just one mind though. Maybe consensus is different. Cheers and serenity. Michael Ten (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Did Web3.js played a role in claiming this name?

For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.

— Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.

179.9.7.78 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Did Web3.js played a role in claiming this name?

For someone late to this, it seems that web3.js played a role in claiming this name, but I did not dig any deep to affirm it. If someone knows more about the history, it would be good to know when and how the js came into play and it's role on it.

— Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Other way around. Gavin Wood coined the term and the javascript team at the Ethereum Foundation used the term in their library. It should be renamed as it does not have too much relevance to the overall movement, it is a code repository for some specific functions specific to Ethereum development.

179.9.7.78 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Web3" refers to the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.

This article title is incorrect. "Web3" is a reference to, and trademark of of the Web3 Foundation. "Web 3.0" is the name of the technological movement it stewards.

179.9.7.78 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to verify this? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, is 'Web3' supposed to mean, or be?

The concept of 'Web3', as defined [sic] here, consists of a number of vague statements that provide no clear definition of what might constitute Web3.

I would suggest that the article is removed until something can be written that actually gives more than a vague, 'hand-wavey' notion of what the title is supposed to mean. This, currently, is more of a non-article than an encyclopaedia entry. It gives the impression that Web3 is merely a new journalistic buzz-phrase, which it might well be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think the article ought to be deleted, that's a conversation that needs to happen at WP:AFD rather than here. But if you think the article simply needs to be improved, I would encourage you to do so: WP:SURMOUNTABLE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources talking about the "internet" when they mean the "world wide web"

I think there is a small problem we're facing here: the sources we use are talking about the internet when they mean the world wide web. The question I have here is are we in the position to change that in the text to ensure it's correct? I think it's tricky because we should be relying on what the sources say. BeŻet (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure most readers would make a meaningful distinction between the two. However if there are sources that go into how web3 is a concept that relates to the WWW rather than the Internet, we could potentially say as much here (and also explain how the two terms are different). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a large problem here. In a subject which is fundamentally rooted in technology the article, indeed the concept of 'Web3', consists of a number of vague statements assembled under a title which seems to owe more to journalistic novelty than to any actual technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.135.44 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Have you got sources that you think present a clearer idea? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential sources

Compiling a list of sources that ought to be considered for this article:

Less strong but still worth considering:

I hope to come back and do some work on it myself, but wanted to put this source list here for the benefit of anyone who may have the opportunity to focus on this article before I do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is just spam

Some folks heavily involved in the cryptocurrency space are trying hard to bend the world to their own vision. The term "web3" is just that - it is not a thing, hence the haziness, but a term they are coining to try and legitimate their activity. Saying a lie long enough or loud enough shouldn't make it happen, this page should simply be deleted. 78.197.117.47 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web3 is the place for this discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Undue source

I think this source is not good enough to give a general overview of the topic - it doesn't seem to be much more than a blog. BeŻet (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it, it's definitely undue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What is "Technologies" Section for?

There is a "technologies" section of this article, which is currently blank, and which specifies in the edit page that "specific products" should not be listed. Of course, it is sensible to prevent promotion of favored products. But many Web3 technologies are dependent on tokens which are associated with the companies which developed the token (this is the case with Steemit and LBRY, for example.)

So, what kind of content is appropriate for this section if not "specific products"? Is there anything that could be put under this heading which is not already under the heading "Concept"? And if not, should we keep this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.55.152.212 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Blockchain could be one; right now, probably the only one. BeŻet (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
We already link out to blockchain; I'm not sure what purpose would be served by detailing it here. The purpose of the section is unclear to me with it left empty. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps it was added as a form of encouragement, but maybe we should just remove it all together until there is more to write about. @Jehochman: would you be against us removing this for now? BeŻet (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don’t mind either way. My logic was to replicate a section from Web 2.0 that was not covered by this article. I think we could provide a concise summary of each of blockchain, cryptocurrency, NFTs, metaverse and any other key buzzwords, with a link to the full article. That way a reader knows a little more what this all about without having to read a bunch of other articles. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it now to avoid confusion. BeŻet (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Web3 / Web 3.0 "coined"

I don't think the article should say that Gavin Wood "coined" the term Web 3.0. It seems like a misreading/misunderstanding of the original ref, which states "Gavin Wood coined the term Web3 (originally Web 3.0) in 2014." I think the article meant that he coined the term Web3, and that the idea was originally called Web 3.0 (I assume from what Web 3.0 used to mean, which was the next version of the web after Web 2.0).

Also, the current citation verifying that he "coined" Web3 is a Wired article in which the main contents are an interview given by Wood. I don't want Wikipedia to claim that he originated the term, or imply he originated the concept, without strong sources to back up what might be considered an exceptional claim. When I search Web3 "coin" Gavin Wood in Google News, it seems all of the sources are from within the past month... all after the original Wired article (and all less reliable-looking than the Wired article).

He also created an organization called Web3 Foundation, and I worry how easy it would be for an entrepreneur and well-known blockchain creator to market themself as the originator of a concept that is gaining lots of recent attention (and, likely, funding).

Anyone have any higher-quality sources, or otherwise objections to removing the info? - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are raising a good point. The term Web 3.0 did exist before, but it referred to something completely different (semantic web). Wood may have been the first to use Web3 to refer to this specific concept of blockchain powered decentralised web, but I do agree that if the source is an interview with him, we should look for better ones. BeŻet (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've made a first cut at clearing up the confusion. The "Terminology" section still needs significant editing for flow and clarity. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I'm not going to revert those changes, but I think it's more confusing now, as the article isn't about the semantic web, but about something completely different that shares the same name. I would remove the quote and the intro sentence. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a second cut. Is that better? The important thing is that we should describe the terminology in chronological order. What came first, what came next, and why these are different but easily confused. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's much better. BeŻet (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that looks much better, thank you Jehochman. I still wonder if there are any better sources that state he coined the term or originated the new term? Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we should really only say he created it if there are multiple, high-quality sources stating so. If there's a better way to state how he contributed to the concept than using the term "coined" (that is, if there aren't more high quality sources), then I don't mind summarizing his contributions in a different way. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think the claim is controversial. Nobody else claims to have coined the term as far as I have seen, regularly monitoring media about this topic. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it's controversial; it's that it's an important claim solely sourced to an interview article. It seems to apply to the first point of exceptional - "apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I wouldn't mind if this were a smaller article about a smaller topic, but this article gets more than 10,000 views a day. For a relatively new topic, that's enough views to impact others writing about Web3. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Really, I'm just looking for stronger sourcing here. I don't want this article to be the start of spreading information that might not be complete, or might be someone's personal claim. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Wired is a good source for nerdery. [1] As is O'Reilly. [2] Jehochman Talk 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the O'Reilly source, that's what I was looking for more of. It still seems like these articles stem from the Wired article (O'Reilly links the Wired article in the sentence after it's statement that Wood introduced Web3), but if others aren't too concerned by this, then I'll leave it be :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The history of this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3&diff=prev&oldid=1021050414

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web3&diff=1072849109&oldid=1054434244

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3&oldid=1020938025

Where can i find the history of Web3 before November 9, 2021‎? Was the page moved before Web3 became about crypto Web3? Michael Ten (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The page log shows that an earlier version of this page was deleted in 2009, made a redirect to Semantic Web § Web 3.0 in 2019, and restarted in 2021. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Web3? Shouldn't be Web4?

I've followed the development of the WWW since the beginning, from the static HTML sites and its unidirectional information (web 1.0), the revolution of blogs that allowed users to share their thoughts and the base for a bidirectional content creation (web 2.0) and the social media, when all the content was generated by the users (web 3.0). Why some people claim today that the next big thing is called web3 🤔? --Ekz4 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ekz4: In short, typical definitions of Web 2.0 describe (1) the rise of interactive and dynamic web content, and (2) the migration from individual self-maintained websites toward centralized platforms, and this includes both blogs (Blogspot, Tumblr and LiveJournal) and early social-networking sites (Myspace, Facebook, Twitter). Although blogs are far less popular now, the two essentially grew up in parallel, so there's not really a sharp historical distinction to be made there.
An alternative answer is "that's just the way it is". This is how reliable sources use these terms, so Wikipedia follows. I personally think dividing the history of the ever-evolving internet into discrete "version numbers" is already pretty silly, so it makes sense that the "generation" numbers would be a bit arbitrary. Web 2.0, HTML5, CSS3, and web3 are all basically just buzzwords for "the new cool thing."
In the future, do know that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussing or speculating about article subjects. Wikipedia's Computing reference desk would be a better place for this kind of question. Hope this helps! RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Garbage article

This reads like a social media rant. The article briefly mentioned several implementations or theories for web3 but then doesn't give any information about them. The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter. We can do better. This is a very disappointing example of Wikipedia. 69.169.131.138 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Do better. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
How? There is no meaning to this term. It is a very fresh neologism. The closest one can get is that web3 means “what if we put the web on the blockchain”. What if, indeed? Would it work? Would anyone use it? What specifically would it mean to do that? Nobody knows. I still think, though I am shouting in the wilderness, that there is nothing to write an article about here. FalconK (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Better the unenlightned be exposed to Wikipedia's more balanced coverage than all the promo spam you otherwise encounter when you Google the neologism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Your rant does nothing to improve the article or indicate how it can or should be improved.
The bulk of the read presents the opinions of several celebrities who have no relation to the subject matter.
Perhaps it looked different when you wrote that, but currently it's not at all accurate. Jibal (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Web3 is going great

This website is hysterical, and a good news crawl for web3 controversies. We should probably add a "Controversy" section to highlight just how scammy web3 is right now. I think we should also look at the Web 3.0 technology stack as identified by the web3 foundation. This technology stack is more sophisticated than just "blockchain." We might add a section on these technologies. I am going to add these two sites as external links because I think both of them are valuable to readers seeking more information. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

it is definitely hysterical (re. climate hysteria), also not notable. 2404:4408:4756:D000:5D3C:6E02:8D9:7EC5 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Because you say so, bro? Jehochman Talk 12:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
climate hysteria
This is not a soapbox. (And you might want to take a look at our edifying articles on climate science.) Jibal (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Potentially redundant and misleading material

I reverted some good faith edits by Elyna2734 which purport to discuss the "scholarly literature". The edit states of Web3 "the term has gained popularity in scholarly literature as a means to refer to a more equitative version of the internet".

The provided reference states "For its advocates, the peer-to-peer character of web3 means it represents a more equitable vision for the web than its current iteration, Web 2.0, which is dominated by powerful intermediary platforms (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google and other big tech companies)". Since this concept is attributed to Web3's advocates, it would be misleading to attribute it to "scholarly literature". Additionally this concept and the "Three fundamental architectural enablers" are already mostly reflected in the lead and therefore appear to be redundant. It may be reasonable to add something about distributed ledger, if this isn't redundant to the already-mentioned blockchain and cryptocurrency concepts. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This sentences has been changed to "However, in scholarly literature the term was mentioned as a means to refer to a more equitative version of the internet by its advocates" Elyna2734 (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
There are no misleading materials. This is citing published content by the Bennett Institute at the University of Cambridge. I don't understand where the qualification of this contribution as "redundant"  comes from. Elyna2734 (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with ScienceFlyer—I don’t see what value this sentence adds, especially in the lede, which already provided a more neutral (and grammatical) summary of these facts. The source is a policy brief (a lay summary of a topic), not an academic publication. Calling it “scholarly literature” is a mild misrepresentation at best. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders thanks for sharing your POV. The previous lede was no neutral, and highly bias towards a particular view of technologists and journalists. This edit provides a definition given in a report an academic foundation. This view was not shared in the previous sentences. IMO, current version of the article is far more consensual and unbiased. Elyna2734 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Bennett is a policy institute associated with Cambridge, not "an academic foundation", and a single policy brief is not "scholarly science", nor does it provide any support for the claim that "the term has gained popularity in research as" anything in particular. The policy brief is simply an attempt (by one Sam Gilbert, "an entrepreneur and researcher working at the intersection of politics and technology" with an MPhil in International Relations and Politics from Cambridge) to characterize for policy makers the "particular view of technologists and journalists" as you put it, so it's no less biased than that which it is characterizing, and it is inherently redundant. And the word "equitative" refers to horsemanship; the word you want is the one your source uses: "equitable". Jibal (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency between the article's title and content

One of the very first things I noticed when reading this article is that it doesn't seem to use consistent terminology for its subject matter: the Wikipedia article itself is titled Web3, but the content of the article begins with "Web 3 (also known as Web 3.0 and sometimes stylized as web3)..."

The article should use a consistent naming convention between the title of the article and its content, so which should be the title of the article? Web3, Web 3, web3, or Web 3.0? TheWizardG (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I addressed this with some changes to the lead. Otherwise, the article uses "Web3" throughout, which in my experience is the most common formatting in source material. It's often lowercased, and I'd have no objection to this article using the lowercased form, but the uppercase matches conventions at Web 2.0. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the article. It didn't tell me anything!

Perhaps the people who wrote this should read a good article like the one about the electron. Just read the introduction and try to understand what it does that this article does not.

To define something (that is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do right?) you need to define its properties including what you can do with it. None of that seems to happen here.

Let's look at what we can do with the current web, which I think is just Timbo's web with a lot of nastier people on it. Presumably web2 didn't happen because no one knew what that was either. The first thing I need to know for any web is how do I create a website. At the moment all I do is upload a bunch of files onto a server and I'm done. To view my website all a user needs to do is to enter a url for a file on my server into their browser and bingo! They obtain the url from some other website which may or may not be a search engine. For the majority of people these are the only important characteristics of a web.

So how do things change with a web3 web? I was hoping this article might tell me – but no. Presumably for web3 I need some kind of blockchain access to create a website. Does this imply that I need a crypto-currency account? If so, I will probably give up producing websites because I'm not going to sink that low. Also, at the moment, if I need to amend information on my website, I just upload a new copy of the relevant file to the server. The old information is gone forever. Suppose I accidentally include false or damaging information on my site concerning some individual or organisation and they bring pressure on me to remove it. How is that going to work on an append only blockchain? Even if not easily accessible, the false information will be there forever – until crypto-currencies go tits up in a nasty stinking mess anyway!

From a users perspective, how hard will it be to see old versions of a website? Does web3 make the Wayback Machine redundant? I'll come back in a few years and probably find that this article has been depreciated in favour of one about web9, but no one can define that either. Articles like this are not encyclopedic.81.140.177.204 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not really a problem with the article, but with Web3 itself - it's a very hazy concept; more of a buzzword than anything. BeŻet (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not clear on how your comments help to improve the article. I particularly don't think it makes any sense to compare a proposed concept for a new technological framework to electrons, which are existing ubiquitous fundamental physical particles that have been subjected to decades of experimentation and scientific theorizing to eke out their detailed properties. If you're looking for something like that in this article you're not going to find it because they are very different subjects ... that doesn't make an article about one encyclopedic and an article about the other not.
Note that this is page is for editors to improve the article so help us out here: if you find reliable sources that provide answers to your questions, post them here and suggest how they can be incorporated in the article ... or just do so yourself. Jibal (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I empathise with this problem. I'm actually a public expert in this area (cryptocurrency), and I couldn't tell you what "web3" is, because it isn't anything except marketing hot air. I actually came to this article just now because I'm working on something where I need to define "web3", and ... there just isn't a definition.
I don't know how we could rewrite this article to be useful in answering "yes, but what the hell is it". I concur we need to - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd love to make this article clearer in answering the "wtf is web3" question, though I'm not sure how to when the available source material is similarly vague. IMO we don't have much choice but to say "it's a vague term, a lot of people think it's marketingspeak, here are how some RS have tried to describe it". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

proliferation of far-right extremism?

Lmao, everything that has the potential to disrupt neo-marxismapproaches like centralization will instantly be framed "racist", "sexist" or promoting far-right extremism. Look at the people in web3. Those are the most post-modern, idividualistic free minded people.

Beside, the reference given does not state the extremism bs at all. However I'm sure its easy to find some quirk-head to chatter some nonsense together in some medium article, such that this wiki can frame "properly" 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The text in the lede that you're referring to was inserted four days ago, and has since been changed back. In the future, please frame your desired changes using constructive language (e.g. "please change X to Y"), or be bold and edit the article yourself. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of web3 users, "neo-marxism", "quirk-heads", et cetera. Best wishes, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Overemphasis of blockchain

I think the lead needs to tone down blockchain. Web3, having read many different sources, seems to be the thing that comes after Web 2.0. Everyone seems to have their own ideas about what that means, but some common themes are: more user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, and maybe even better user privacy. These are my impressions, and feedback, not an attempt to craft a sentence. Instead of relying so heavily on footnote 5, could we try to take a broader view? Jehochman Talk 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure? It looks like this term is being heavily flogged by blockchain maximalists who really want it to be a buzzword, and I don't see anyone else using it. If you can find a current source that discusses it as being something else, substantively, maybe that would be useful. FalconK (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
How about NPR [3]? We should at least show there are many different opinions. This is an emerging neologism. The exact definition will be in play for a time. I prefer a more general (less constrained) definition. Jehochman Talk 08:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw that article too. It discusses primarily blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs, and reports on the same maddening idea that somehow these will "undergird" the internet. It doesn't offer anything beyond them to explain how to get the user control, decentralization, less reliance on big platforms, more peer-to-peer relationships, or better user privacy. "Instead, they are decentralized, built upon a system known as the blockchain." Why? How? Who could know? FalconK (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Please provide citations from reliable sources, not just your opinion, which no one here can validate. Jibal (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It’s a maddening bunch of idiocy. Perhaps the reason it keeps going is that people are unhappy with what Web 2.0 has become, and are casting about for something better. These crypto grifters are latching onto that desire for something better. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view, the overwhelming majority of discussions about Web3 are from the crypto crowd - hence, the overemphasis on blockchain. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that any concept of "web3" without a blockchain is fundamentally different from the one described at this article and should be described separately (and disambiguated as necessary). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Accepting that, it logically follows that we need the General Sanctions warning box for cryptocurrency that I have just placed on this page. Jehochman Talk 23:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This is purely an expression of your opinion, which is of no help (or relevance). Jibal (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
They do have a point though. This page is mostly about "opinions" about this so-called Web3 by people regarded as famous. Iammethe24 (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Whoops. I replied to the wrong section. My bad. Iammethe24 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web3/Archive_1&oldid=1154879266"