Brian Armstrong
@barmstrong
Hello @jessepollak and Faryar Shirzad https://i.imgur.com/6VTBgzJ.jpg
10 replies
2 recasts
28 reactions
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Hope this topic was on the docket: Rebrand “web3” —> “onchain”
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Noah Bragg 🐟🥔
@nbragg
Interesting proposal. What do you have against the name web3?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
1. Avg consumer doesnt know what "web2" is. That's an insider thing. 2. "onchain" is like the new "online" – it's a state with a value proposition. 3. I can see my 65 y/o dad saying "but is that onchain? and not "but is that web3?" 4. "chain" speaks to a fundamental technical property. "3" is wholly conventional.
4 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Noah Bragg 🐟🥔
@nbragg
I like it. I can see it. Seems like in crypto we have to change our terms every couple of years. Hope that doesn't have to happen again with onchain.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ben Scharfstein
@scharf
The problem is that onchain != web3. Farcaster is web3 but casts aren't onchain. IMO it's important (at least for developers) to call out the web3 parts of farcaster (sufficient decentralization, permisionlessness, data portability) even though it's not onchain.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
whit 🔜 FarCon 🔵💜
@whit
The problem w/ “onchain” is that a company can maintain a private blockchain that’s essentially no different than a private database, yet still claim their stuff is “onchain.” Despite technically being correct, a company like that is still web2 in my book. Whereas web3 implies permissionless & decentralized.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bozo.eth
@nj
Definitely. Onchain makes a lot of sense. Even conceptually when we as developers are designing a system, usually we're thinking about which parts go onchain and which parts can be put offchain. It's good branding and describes what is happening underneath pretty well.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
