Brian Armstrong pfp
Brian Armstrong
@barmstrong
Hello @jessepollak and Faryar Shirzad https://i.imgur.com/6VTBgzJ.jpg
16 replies
2 recasts
29 reactions

tldr (tim reilly) pfp
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Hope this topic was on the docket: Rebrand โ€œweb3โ€ โ€”> โ€œonchainโ€
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Noah Bragg ๐ŸŸ pfp
Noah Bragg ๐ŸŸ
@nbragg
Interesting proposal. What do you have against the name web3?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

tldr (tim reilly) pfp
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
1. Avg consumer doesnt know what "web2" is. That's an insider thing. 2. "onchain" is like the new "online" โ€“ 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

whit ๐Ÿ”ต  ๐ŸŽฉ ๐Ÿ’œ pfp
whit ๐Ÿ”ต ๐ŸŽฉ ๐Ÿ’œ
@whit
The problem w/ โ€œonchainโ€ is that a company can maintain a private blockchain thatโ€™s essentially no different than a private database, yet still claim their stuff is โ€œonchain.โ€ 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

Noah Bragg ๐ŸŸ pfp
Noah Bragg ๐ŸŸ
@nbragg
good point! We can't trust everyone when they say onchain. I have some things I want to do to help fix this! ๐Ÿ‘€
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction