- From: Chaals Nevile <chaals@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:55:53 +0000
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
With respect, I think this discussion is a waste of time. I'd like to suggest we stop this discussion for the reasons advanced by Eric and Robin. If you want to talk branding there are plenty of venues appropriate for that. W3C TAG is not one of them. Why not go tell the blockchain people that they are using the word wrong, or re-rebrand linked data (né semantic web) as web 4 (or 5)? cheers On Friday, July 21, 2023 06:36:36 (+02:00), Melvin Carvalho wrote: > The hallmark of the W3C's web stack has been its commitment to vendor > neutrality and royalty-free standards. Except that the stack isn't W3C's... > Unlike Web3 projects that rely on > blockchain and token dependencies, the protocols of the W3C web stack do > not directly enrich the authors of the specifications. Perhaps not, but there are many features of the protocols that enable some to be winners and others to lose - and there are of course people who, in a vendor-neutral forum, achieve outcomes that are for the good of themselves as well as the greatest benefit of the web. > fostering innovation without hidden agendas and conflicts of interest. With respect, that is nonsense. Hidden agenda and conflicts of interest predate and permeate our environment as much as any other. > 2 Affinity Scam Exploitation: > > Web3 projects capitalize on the familiarity and trust established by the > World Wide Web to promote their token sales deceptively. I haven't seen that. Can you name someone who does it? As far as I can tell, the scammy bits of blockchain rely on a range of approaches, many of which (phishing, misinformation, ...) were copied from and are usually only possible through the web we all love. > The concept of Web3 as a revolutionary and trustworthy advancement is far > from reality. Sure. It's not even a single coherent concept. Why are you presenting it as such? > In short, the fundamental distinction lies in the financial incentives: W3C > authors do not directly profit from items within the protocol, while Web3 > authors consistently enrich themselves through block chains and tokens that > are part of the specifications. This is stretching reality beyond its functional tolerances, while > Author premined chains and tokens, or ICOs, > are always present in Web3 protocols. is just balderdash. -- Chaals Nevile Using Fastmail - it's worth it
Received on Saturday, 22 July 2023 08:56:10 UTC