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
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
Noah Bragg 🐟🥔
@nbragg
good point! We can't trust everyone when they say onchain. I have some things I want to do to help fix this! 👀
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
