Bitcoin Forum

Look, I used to be a web developer. And I used to get pissed off whenever people brought up the term "web 2.0".

"Hey, I need you to make me a site, please make it look web 2.0"

 :-X  :-X  :-X

But you know what? The press and general public lap that shit up and it caught on.

Today I came across this: http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-challenge-dollar-currency-121/

He is calling Bitcoin web 3.0.

I think if we collectively started to use this term, even though it's fucking stupid it could catch on.

If people start saying "Hey I need you to make a website, make sure it's web 3.0 compatible" then the battle is over.

To make this happen we need something. A visually recognizable aesthetic that is applied to the term "web 3.0". An example would be some kind of social payments system, or just an art style that can be associated with Bitcoin.

We need something on the same level as those fancy expensive design companies, the type that work for pepsi/coke/mcdonalds, serious brand shit.

It does't need to be expensive. phpBB pulled it off with their cutting edge subsilver theme when it was new and that is also free software.

Although I like the idea, do you know what web 2.0 is?
It's user generated content, big websites like Youtube, Facebook and twitter that get their valuable content from users, not professional writers.
I agree on the fact that the term web 3.0 can be extremely powerful for Bitcoin.

Hey, if Web 3.0 marks a new generation of web content, I don't see why not.  I'd call this a pretty big leap for what's made possible via the Internet.

You are correct today, but a few years ago everybody basically thought that white background + lights colors + rounded corners = web 2.0.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060111060526/http://digg.com/? being commonly cited as an example.

If you think of Bitcoin as an essential money system for the internet, then it is a marketing vector that might work. Americans are inculcated from birth to label by brands rather than function.

But isn't Bitcoin the brand? I just think that web 3.0 doesn't really make me think Bitcoin, it just doesn't make sense, plus web 3.0 has been branded as mobile I think anyway.

How about:

web 1.0 = passive
web 2.0 = active
web 3.0 = P2P/decentralized/torrents/crypto currency/anonymity

web 3.0 is already an existing term, since years. it stands for the semantic web initiatives.

using the term web 3.0 in another context just makes you look stupid.

bitcoin is web 3.0

I've been saying it for months now.

Maybe web 3.0 = decentralized

There's some good posts in the thread, but I wanted to share my thoughts in it.

Web 1.0: Wow, I can make a website! Myspace, Xanga, Yahoo, Freewebs. Sites that tried to do too much with too little. And had too many options. MySpace themes were great for business, but terrible on everyone's eyes. Lots of ugly websites. The "good" looking websites had prettier buttons. Not a lot of emphasis on usability.

Web 2.0: Hey, one website to rule them all doesn't work so well? What if one website did something really well? Minus, say Facebook, which does everything (and honestly, though I hate to admit it, does it decently well). These are more minimal themes. More about looking pretty by being something than having curved borders and random pictures. Better organized data. Bit of HTML5/CSS3. Still using Flash. <video> and <audio> tags if you're fancy. But ultimately, a more refined web 1.0 with more of a social aspect in general. I think some websites skipped the Web 1.0 phase altogether and were simply no-nonsense from the start.

Web 3.0: You know those usernames and passwords required for everything? With addresses, emails, and personal details to do anything on a website? What if we cut that out where we could? Why do you need to login at all? This is where Bitcoin comes in, and login-less sites in particular. This is another refinement questioning what a user is and should be. puppytwist.com is a good example. Web ads without ever having to login. Bittrivia is close to web 3.0, but still has logins (probably a good thing). Web 3.0 is for getting everything to you faster, with less restrictions, and less in the way. Bitcoin happens to be the perfect way to do that if payments are involved. You can become a payment address and nothing else. Just send money by scanning a QR code and move on. Very fast and simple.

what? web is a very generic term for very generic ensemble of technologies

why not call bitcoin a "Advanced Toaster 2.1"

yup, I'd also like to see a web 3.0 that encompasses something like freenet on steroids (i.e. it scales) and communication/social networking with total control of own's privacy built-in, mesh networks (no more ISPs), and P2P currency of course.

How about the old chestnut: "Web 3.11 for Workgroups"?

I never really liked the term Web 2.0 but I thought these terms were not related to the broad term of 'Internet' but only to websites 'n' stuff.

Bitcoin is much more than that but we could say part of Web 3.0 could be decentralized* payment systems.

*in theory though, Mt.Gox needs some proper competition

It doesn't need to make sense.  It's marketing. 

right. that disqualifies the actual and several years old 3.0 definition. my bad...

Web 3.0 is already taken by Symantic Web.

After looking for a link it is apparent a number things are trying to use Web 3.0.

http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/what-is-web-30.htm

This.

All of you are being ridiculous...














































Bitcoin is obviously web 4.0

Let's call it Thunderballs 18.2;  if people could just get behind that I think we could really rule the world.

Good old Max Keiser said that:



I agree... lets go with Mobile 3.0.

Then "Web 4.0" is fine.

I like web 3.0 as well. It  IS stupid, but that is exactly what the public likes. The dumbest lame shit ever. Look at whats playing at the local cineplex, whats on TV, Skrillex ffs. People like stupid shit. Its also easy to remember. I saw that article you linked earlier. good stuff!

haha exactly!!!

Web 3.0 already has a definition.  As others have stated, it refers to the "semantic web" where information is store/retreived in more or less raw state, and websites and pretty presentation is irrelevant.  Web services, like APIs, DBPedia (Wikipedia in Raw Database Format), Google's login system for other other sites, things like that, are examples of this.

The objective of a semantic web is to allow services to "hook" into other services - think of creating macros that integrate the functionality of several websites in one stroke.  A semantic web might allow you to have a digital personal assistant, like Siri, answer complex questions about real-time content without having to scrape content from webpages.

Instead of being served a website with a bunch of fancy formatting, advertisements, javascript, extra images, you would pull a raw article from the service, and plug it into whatever you need it for.  In a theoretically fully semantic web, all things are clearly known for what they are, possibly by some ontology-based tagging like OWL.

It's very open, where the "survivors" are the ones who provide the best content, most consistently, with few to no strings attached.

After giving it some thought, though, I suppose Bitcoin could help facilitate this development in some way.

Then bitcoin is web 4.0

web 4.0 = decentralized

Therefore, it's time to implement the Mesh based internet delivered by Zeppelins, or whatever that crazy idea was. Sounds as crazy as Bitcoin initially did, so it'll probably happen

Version number inflation, the best kind of inflation!

How about satellite? If the sun (http://www.space.com/14818-solar-flare-magnetic-storm-satellites.html) will continue cooperating.

So is it fair to say that Satoshi Dice, MPEx, and Silk Road are examples of web 3.0? Maybe censorship resistance and no logins have something to do with it, a lot of applications will be able to achieve this by exploiting features of the blockchain. Could implementation of private arbitration be possible as an example of web 3.0 in the future?