When people talk about Site 3, what are they talking about?

The word "Web3" may seem vague because it is used as a label for many different concepts. Given that this is a decentralized group that matters for decentralization, the lack of focus is not surprising. It is different for different people.

Most of the descriptions I've seen focus on highlights like blockchains, smartcards, tokens, etc. (I think it's better to use a private key for authentication/authorization if, say, SSH can overcome the UX issues it's had for years.) Is that when the people talk about web3, what do they mean? ? Is it a miracle?

The best explanation I've heard so far is that it's a process/build for almost unbelievable promises. Frankly, it doesn't look like that. But if you think about it, passion is the basis of almost every world today, and I think that's the main reason why even the languages ​​spoken around this place can be wild.

Some examples:

Do you know who you are? The government provides you with a number that identifies you by giving you a unique number.

How do you prove you own a home? The government has declared a declaration that the land and what is in it belongs to you. The government keeps this promise in the public records as a copy of the document.

How to prove that you have money to buy? You are a wealthy fiat or you have a bank account number with your balance. The promise of this balance can only be kept by the bank.

In such a case, all promises have been kept by the police. I'm a government and you trust me, so you'll come to believe that number is that person or house, it's them. I'm a banker and you'll think you have $100. Because... that's what I said. In theory, using a machine like the Ethereum blockchain, you can make the same kind of commitment, but without trusting others to pitch their business.

Removing trust allows you to do things that were previously inappropriate. For example, suppose you want to renovate a park in your community. It will take time, but it will take thousands of dollars worth of equipment to do it. You can go to your neighbors and try to earn money, but you have to rely on donations. Unfortunately, trust is so low these days that I don't think you'll have a hard time convincing people to spend a few hundred dollars each.

But incredible promises have another way. You can specify the amount that must be done, you can specify what you can do in the contract, and you can state the extent of the breach. Upon submission, this "Agreement" will be treated as specified. It is observable, debuggable and tamper-proof by everyone. So as a community we could raise $2000 together and ask them to pledge $2000 to prove it to anyone who wants to buy a body kit. If the community votes that the money was misused, that person loses their property and everyone benefits. Now everyone has to trust each other. If there is not enough money, everyone gets their money back. If you're trying to run with $2,000, that's no problem. Because you lost $2,000, you executed yourself.

Now your community may be close enough that you don't need this recognition. But it's not about removing confidence, it's about increasing what you can do to a certain level. If you could give your neighbors a few hundred dollars, ten thousand dollars? Even if you believe in and support the group's cause, sometimes you'll want to believe that there are ways to deal with abuse.

This framework, which proves its commitment to improve security at a certain level of confidence, works especially when used on the Internet. You may not trust anyone on your network very much, but it allows you to do more with less confidence. This allows people on low incomes to travel and travel safely, to "adventure" in activities in which they are involved, or to engage in large-scale activities such as improving parks throughout the city.

Essentially, systems that do not require authorization to contract can be the basis of the majority of owners and businesses. It can also serve as the basis for financial support. Also, you need to trust that this person won't change their mind or do more bad things. A story of terrible choices. After all, passion is the most important thing here. Personal, company, business, etc. are exactly what they use.

We'll have to see how that works, but at least in theory the concept of web3 provides another basis for internal community work. Recognition here does not necessarily have to be backed by a knowledgeable person (i.e. the government), but rather by the analysis and analysis of cryptographic mathematics. Due to how easy this ability is, it's hard to say where it will root. Probably none of these examples end where something like this happened. After all, the current bureaucracy has enormous inertia. But I think it wouldn't be like it would take a small place in the world. There are many side effects, if none of them bring a significant improvement of an effective axis.

By combining current processes such as proof-of-work blockchains, smart contracts, tokens, etc., local maxima can easily turn out to be bad or dead heaps. On a technical level, I was very sorry for their research and was surprised that something went wrong. However, I think it would be a mistake to look at the actual process and ignore the actual work they are trying to deliver.

As a relative outsider, incredible promise seems to be the essence of Site 3, which feels harder than JPEG or estimate owners.

In the current process, it is almost unbelievable or unbelievable because 51% of the time the network is unattended and you have to believe that there are no loopholes in the system and word contracts. Given the size and history of these networks, the biggest risk is the contracts themselves, but we don't think that the templates, the proof contracts, because there are template contracts, will become the template. I think it is less reliable than other systems.

For better or for worse, it does what it does. There is a controversy that we need a way to resolve extenuating circumstances and establish a very good discussion of the terms of agreement on existing cases in the law.

There is still a negative belief here. It's when your neighbors participate and vote that you haven't improved the park even though you've worked according to the rules. The contract can also be given to a third party to be a judge in such cases. That's another reason why I think it's not really trustworthy, it increases what you can do with the faith you have.

It's ostensibly by law, but anyone who's made a small claim in court knows the truth of this method is...painful. Moreover, they often end up being less than ideal.