At one time, people looked to Silicon Valley under the illusion that it would create a new type of rich, a more intelligent and social rich, if not enlightened. Today we need to change our minds and understand that he did not create a new rich person, but only created new rich people. Which are worse, if possible, than the old ones. And we're seeing it with that steaming pile of shit that's already called "web 3.0".
The first thing that leaves you astonished is the blatant scam behind the words with which it is justified. In the sense that it is pushed to an "advertising" level by saying things that are not only false, but are exactly the opposite of the truth. I give some examples.
1) Blockchains are NOT decentralized.
Let's imagine we have two servers, with the same bandwidth. One hosts an ecommerce site that uses the usual backend database for transactions. The second uses a blockchain for the same purpose.
According to the vulgate of scoundrels 3.0, the traditional server would obey centralized logic because it relies on central banks that decide the interest rates, from the credit cards that give you the gateway and decide the cost of commissions, etc., while it would be decentralized. and the second "without central authority".
Too bad that in reality the following thing would happen:
- Whenever the blockchain is flooded with a massive stream of, say, NFT, your website slows down. Then comes a new Nappi porn, every frame is put under NFT; and suddenly your motorcycle article website becomes slow. Because'? Because "it does not depend on a central authority". LOL.
- the commissions are not decided by you. They are decided by the main miners and by the so-called "whales", depending on the jungle of useless neologisms that indicate the implementation of the blockchain. If it is implemented "shit", like the average of the blockchains, you will pay the commissions they say, period and that's it. “Why don't you depend on greedy banks”.
- ditto for the value of the cryptocurrency itself, which is decided by a group of exchanges and by the so-called "whales" of your blockchain. We have gone, that is, from depending on the Forex authorities (usually government) to a group of characters ranging from Colombian narcos to unknown speculators in Utzbekistan, Elon Musk's Twits, and so on. And this happens because "the value is not decided by central banks".
the first misconception that today's cryptocurrency cazzari play on is that the problem seems to be that banks, central banks, credit cards have TOO MUCH power.
The reality, the problem is that the common man has little power . Moving from a situation where you have little power (the current one) to one where you have EVEN LESS power (cryptocurrencies and the NFT market) is a fucking idea.
Nobody gives a shit if Bitcoin does not depend on the central bank, when it depends on Elon Musk's Twits, and on anyone who has a lot of money and can (with a simple purchase) increase its value. Either way, I have no power. In exchange I as a person have not gained any freedom, any power, any security.
So why does everyone say that blockchains are decentralized? Because when they are computer scientists they are Javascript programmers, and when they are not they speak from hearsay: the fact that you have (or can theoretically have) the entire ledger does not make it a "decentralized" structure, but a "redundant" structure ", If you want" replicated ", but decentralized is a different thing.
2) Blockchains do NOT protect your data and the fact that the ledger is public DOES NOT guarantee you ANYTHING.
When I started with Bitcoin, around 2011, the whole ledger was small, something like 50Gb. Now it's gotten a lot bigger: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all
Now, as big as it is now the ledger can still fit on a hard disk of your computer. The trouble is that the whole dimension of ALL blockchains put together is what VISA, American Express or a normal credit card scheme call "any Thursday". If we put all the transactions of a card like VISA in a ledger, only a hyperscaler (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc) could contain them. So if you move the Web and your transactions on such a ledger, you have given them to GAFAM as a gift, because you cannot have an exascale datacenter at home.
So you will necessarily find yourself using an ultrasupergigalight client, which contains only an infinitesimal fraction of the ledger, and as such does NOT guarantee for a shit that you can "validate" a transaction, or be able to verify it, or be able to know the validity 'of the wallet you are sending money to. You will have to delegate it to the few hyperscalers who have all the data because they can contain (and read in a reasonable time) the ledgers.
And this is a fantastic situation for the gafams: THEY, and ONLY THEY, will have ALL the data, while you will not. And not only that: having all the data will cost NOTHING to anyone who has the resources to manage them. You just gave away all the financial data on the web to a few hyperscalers. Congratulations.
3) But NFTs are cool and run a lot of money ..
The problem with NFTs, as well as the problem with blockchains, is not that a friend of yours made money. In all the chains of St. Anthony the first get rich. The problem is that so far ONLY those who arrived first have made money from us, and those who invest enough money to affect its value, like Elon Musk.
The same goes for NFTs. An NFT is a digital signature that is placed on a work. The trouble is that, contrary to what is being sold by shit dealers, you don't need to be the author to put up an NFT.
NFT is not an ownership certificate in any way: Rowling can take her book and put an NFT in it, and then it SEEMS that Rowling has certified that she is the author. So I take the same book, translated into Italian, and put my signature on it, and here is my NFT.
Then Rowling can also do an NFT of all authorized translations. Apart from that I can still put an NFT on my unauthorized translation, I can also take his work, add a space between two words, and at that point the NFT will be unique, the checksum will be different, and my NFT will be valid.
Of course, if you have a source of trust, like banks have, you can use them to sign transactions, which you can guarantee yourself are authentic, and in this way use them in your work. In fact, in the fintech world they are being used. But it is a world where external authorities guarantee that only the author creates the NFT.
But was it necessary for it to end like this?
No it was not. When bitcoin was born I was enthusiastic about it. But I was thrilled because the usual pigs hadn't put their hands in it. But I would be wrong to say "the usual pigs", because they are not THE USUAL pigs. They are the NEW pigs.
Silicon Valley, and the example of Theranos should say it, is no longer made up of people who are there to make the future. There are no longer the best minds in math or STEM science. That was the future: the minds we speak of have pissed off working 24/7, sleeping in a cubicle for $ 3,000 a month, competing with people born in Sarkazzistan with the morals of a pedophile dingo.
Right now Silicon Valley is exactly where I expect to be kidnapped to sell my organs, if only someone will do the App to find a compatible liver. It's not like those places where tourists cut off a finger to get the ring, it's one of those places where they cut off your arm to take your laptop with the code.
It is not for nothing that there is talk of escape from silicon valley.
Now only the scammers are left. And this on the one hand explains to you why we haven't seen decent news for five years, and on the other hand it explains to you why everything that is born is a scam, and they don't even bother to hide it.
For this reason these Hypes, such as "Web 3.0", are only for the gullible who have not yet burned themselves enough by losing money on Web 2.0.
If you have more money to burn, you might as well spend it on whores. At least for a few moments you will like it very much.
And whores are more honest than the founder of a Web 3.0 startup. Much more honest.
