” Its only value is helping criminals and fraudsters.
Web3, it’s not worth a penny – the world would be a better place without it. This article will explore why this is so, divided into two parts: historical reasons and technical reasons. Of course, there is some overlap between them.
This is the whole hype for Web3 so far. Imagine a world where ape avatars are sold for millions of dollars for greater fool scams and money laundering! The main purpose and function of Web3 is to enable greater fool theory scams, crime and money laundering in broad daylight.
First, according to Wikipedia, the definition of Web3: Web3, also known as Web 3.0, is the idea of a new iteration of the World Wide Web that incorporates blockchain-based decentralization. The number of colossal fatal flaws in this concept is enormous, but one flaw stands out the most – the fully decentralized system never works.
Never in history has a completely decentralized system worked for everything. The reason is simple: if the system fails, it needs to be fail-safe. A decentralised system that has failed cannot rely on it to repair itself, because if it could, it could not have failed in the first place; it failed precisely because it no longer knew how to tell the truth from the false.
So if failsafe is implemented, it will always be centralized failsafe. In mechanical and technical systems, a fail-safe is a switch or other mechanism that a person can use to forcibly override the rest of the system, sometimes the person himself. In other types of decentralized systems, such as governments or marketplaces, failsafe is law and regulation.
To give a few examples.
The first example is “government”. A decentralized government is equivalent to a democracy in which there is no “government” but the entire people make and decide the laws. What has this led to in the past? Mob Rules. The people of each country in general have no idea how to run a country, and many have prejudice and prejudice, often due to lack of education, making them vulnerable to propaganda, lack of diversity, or both Of. On top of that, people of all kinds often vote for their own agendas, often resulting in a tragedy of the commons.
This is not to say that the people are at fault. That said, it is never a good idea to let the people govern themselves, which is one of the main reasons countries decide to hold elections and vote a minority into a centralized “government” whose policies will be enforced by a competent civil service.
The second example is an accident. For a rather dark example of the dangers of decentralized systems in engineering, I’ll point you to the horrific accidents that occurred on two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019 and 2020.
Both planes crashed, killing all 346 people on those planes. The crashes were all caused by a malfunction of a safety system called MCAS; one of the functions of the system is that if the plane appears to be flying at an excessively high angle of attack, it will correct the plane’s path by forcing the plane’s nose down, even at a lower angle.
In such an aircraft system, the pilot should be fail-safe. Overriding the MCAS in this case means forcibly pulling back the aircraft’s control column (yoke). A serious flaw in the MCAS software means it doesn’t disable itself when the pilot overrides it by pulling back on the control column; so when MCAS detects what it thinks is a problem, it will engage in an endless tug-of-war with the pilot, In which the pilot would pull back on the control column to cover the MCAS and immediately start pushing the plane down again.
In this particular case, failsafe was unable to perform the operation due to a software glitch. So for both planes, the pilots were fighting against the planes that were determined to be flying down incorrectly, and they couldn’t correct their heading due to a buggy implementation of the software that allowed them to cover the pilots.
Imagine if the plane were completely dispersed; if the software falsely detected a bad flight, the pilots were powerless to prevent the plane from crashing every time. If this were a system used on all aircraft, we would have had more than two aircraft accidents. For driverless cars, a smaller version of the same problem exists.
The third example is “market”. In modern countries, there are truly astronomical laws governing markets: what businesses can and cannot do, and who has the power to force them to change if they violate these laws. We do this because decentralizing the market has been an absolute disaster for anything they used to want to do.
Businesses, without exception, always act in their best interests; after all, that’s why they were created – to make money. As a result, businesses often use predatory pricing, cartel formation, bid rigging to win work contracts, price fixing to prevent customers from finding better deals elsewhere – the list of such practices is almost endless. If you want to read more about them, you can read Wikipedia’s article on the history of competition law. They still happen to some extent today, but on a much smaller scale than before.
Examples of corporate abuses of this lack of central oversight are almost endless. The Onion Futures Act of 1958 was introduced after two onion traders, Sam Seigel and Vincent Kosuga, cornered the onion market and made huge profits at the expense of Americans and later onion shortages in many states, especially Onion farmers, many of whom went bankrupt due to the actions of Segel and Kosuga. The law is still in force today.
The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010 with a narrow scope, was designed to more tightly regulate the financial industry after the 2007-2009 credit crisis. Unfortunately, it was partially repealed by Republican support in 2018 during Donald Trump’s presidency.
In addition to abuse of power, lack of centralized oversight can lead to companies producing unsafe, fraudulent or coercive products. A plethora of regulations and laws apply to most electronics to ensure they meet safety standards, don’t short out or catch fire, to ensure they’re energy efficient enough, to ensure their waterproof rating is accurate – another nearly endless list. The same applies to most products you can buy; in the past, food was often unsafe and expensive, furniture could be made of flammable materials, etc. Without centralized regulatory powers, companies will sell consumers whatever they can get away with — consumers often can’t tell if a product is defective, or when they can, it’s too late.
Decentralized blockchains were never democratic.
Decentralized blockchains, by their very nature, are not even close to democracy. For example, blockchains that use a proof-of-work consensus system allow those with a lot of hardware to have more votes than anyone else. Proof-of-stake consensus systems allow those with large sums of money to have more votes than anyone else. Delegated proof-of-stake systems allow those with large sums of money to vote among validators who will control what is and isn’t allowed on the blockchain, much like normal proof-of-stake.
In real-world democracies, elections are tightly regulated. The identities of those who are eligible to vote are checked; those who vote in person or by mail are checked to make sure they have not voted twice, and polling stations are set up across the country to count ballots and allow people to vote.
This kind of regulation of real-world democracies costs money. The price of allowing everyone an equal, fair vote is that it is costly: elections cost a lot of money, with MIT estimating about $1 billion a year for US elections, £150 million a year for UK elections, and so on. That’s because avoiding electoral fraud and ensuring everyone has easy and equal access to the vote is an economically unprofitable option; they do it for fairness, not profit.
The only way to stop elections from costing money is to stop checking who voted; even online elections can’t stop you from checking that. Blockchains do this because they don’t care who votes, only how much hardware or how much money they control. You can’t limit who is allowed to vote, or how many votes a person has, because the blockchain’s consensus system has no way of knowing or verifying any of that. The result is that it is easy for small groups with huge voting power, such as those who control a lot of hardware or money, to control such a system. Decentralized systems only work if you want an anonymous oligarchy.
It doesn’t matter at all what system you create; no decentralized system can be democratic unless it allows for equal voting, and it can’t do that without checking that each voter’s identity is unique. Good luck devising a way to do this without a central authority; it’s practically impossible.
Only severely incompetent or malicious developers advocate Web3, and the reason I include this as a section is important: the only developers who advocate Web3 are either hopelessly incompetent enough to develop (a minority), or capable and Malicious (mostly).
From a technical point of view, there is no reason to believe that Web3 is credible or useful. In order to think it’s possible, you first have to believe that you can develop software or systems that won’t fail. I and anyone with a brain can say this is impossible on behalf of the whole software. This should be obvious whether you know anything about software or not.
The whole basis of Web3 is that a decentralized system can work in a certain way without the need for centralized fail-safe (once there is centralized fail-safe, it is no longer a decentralized system). There are no examples of this in history so far, and for good reason: it can’t be done.
At some point your decentralized system can’t agree on what’s going on, or has decided that the wrong version of an event is valid. It can no longer know that it is wrong, so you need something outside the decentralized system to step in and correct it without the approval or consensus of the decentralized system, a centralized system.
Ultimately, I’d call Web3 a bad joke, but that would belittle how destructive and malicious it is. This is one of the worst “innovations” ever proposed; its only value is helping criminals and fraudsters, most of whom are fully aware of its lack of use in any other category.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/web3-a-terrible-idea-that-knows-nothing-about-history-and-technology/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.