> People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will.
I just wrote an article about this — what's really new about web3 is the incentives not the tech.
> People don’t want to run servers. It’s okay for markets to specialize and service providers to receive economies of scale.
> Email is a decentralized protocol, and customer behavior shows people just want to click and have things work, like Gmail.
> What’s important is ensuring protocols stay competitive.
> Federated servers following a decentralized blockchain with layers of competitive protocols for storing data, with semi-interoperable apps built on top, seem like a pretty workable solution.
> Forcing everything P2P will be painful; there’s a reason the Cloud exists. Offline apps are great, and P2P app architecture is great, but expecting users to run P2P nodes is a losing battle. Some power users and volunteers will run nodes, but most will use a 3rd party. It’s better to accept this reality, minimize trust and make it competitive as possible.
It's the best thing I've ever written, if you're into this kind of thing I hope you check it out.
Disintermediating Network Effects for Fun and Profit, How to prevent Web3 from ending up like Web2
This post addresses Jack Dorsey's recent criticisms of Web3 being owned by VCs and big tech, which I agree with. But he doesn't offer a solution—this post is my solution.
HNers will understand network effects more than most, and how difficult it is to build systems that are resistant to capture. Web2 went this way and in some ways Web3 is headed there too.
It reminds me of Stephen Wolfram's hunt for the base "structureless structure" — the hypergraph.
I was trying to find a way to make app data interoperable, tired of migrating notes between apps and losing data — this is how I'd do it.
I think it's almost impossible though (technically possible, just not economically viable).
If I had tons of money to burn on a pet project, this would be a dream place to spend it.