Comparison of Web2 and Web3
Web2 refers to the version of the Internet as we know it today. The Internet is dominated by interconnected companies that provide services in exchange for personal data. In terms of Hash Ahead, Web3 refers to decentralized applications running on the blockchain. Any user can participate in these applications without selling personal data.
Advantages of WEB3
Many Web3 developers choose to build decentralized applications due to the inherent decentralization of Hash Ahead:
Anyone on the network has permission to use the service - in other words, no permission is required.
No one can block or deny you access to the Services.
Payments are structured through the native token HAH.
Hash Ahead is Turing complete, which means you can program almost anything.
Specific Comparison
Twitter can check any account or tweet
Web3 Tweets Are Uncensorable Because Control Is Decentralized
Payment services may decide not to allow payment for certain types of work
Web3 payment app does not require personal data and cannot block payments
Servers running gig economy apps could be down, affecting workers' income
Web3 servers don't go down - they're backed by Hash Ahead, a decentralized network of thousands of computers
This does not mean that all services need to be turned into decentralized applications. The above examples illustrate the main differences between Web2 and Web3 services.
Limitations of WEB3
Currently, Web3 has some limitations:
Scalability - transactions are slower on web3 because they are decentralized. State changes (such as payments) need to be processed by nodes and propagated throughout the network.
UX – Interacting with Web3 applications may require additional steps, software and training. This can be a barrier to application.
Accessibility – Web3 is inaccessible to most users due to insufficient integration in modern web browsers.
Cost - Because of the high cost, most successful decentralized applications only put a small part of their code on the blockchain.
Centralization and Decentralization
In the table below, we outline some of the pros and cons of centralized and decentralized digital networks.
The network radius is short (all participants are connected to the centralized organization); the information transfer is fast because it is processed by a centralized organization with a large number of computing resources.
The furthest participants on the network may be far away from each other. Information broadcast by one party in the network can take a long time to reach the other party.
Performance is generally higher (higher throughput, less overall computational resource consumption) and easier to build.
Typically lower performance (lower throughput, higher total computational resource consumption) and more complex to build.
When conflicting data arises, the solution is clear and simple: the ultimate trusted source of data is the centralized organization.
Resolving a dispute requires an agreement (often a complex agreement). If other participants make conflicting claims about the state of the data that the participant intends to synchronize.
Single point of failure: Malicious actors may be able to target centralized organizations to compromise the network.
No single point of failure: Even if a large percentage of participants are attacked or go offline, the network can still function.
Coordination among participants is much easier and is handled by a centralized organization. Centralized organizations can force network participants to accept upgrades, updated protocols, etc. with less resistance.
Coordination is often difficult because no single actor has the final say in network-level decisions, protocol upgrades, and more. At worst, the network is prone to rupture when there is disagreement over protocol changes.
Centralized organizations can censor data, possibly cutting off certain parts of the network from interacting with other parts of the network.
Censorship is much more difficult because there are multiple ways for information to travel across the web.
Network access is controlled by a centralized organization.
Anyone can join the network; there are no "gatekeepers". Ideally, the participation fee would be very low.
Note that these are general profiles and may not apply to every network. Also, in reality, how centralized/decentralized a network is depends on a range of factors; no network is completely centralized or fully decentralized.
Last updated