Gavin Wood founder of Polkadot is explaining details about Web3 and its workings. Let's found out the details.
As we move into the future, we find that trustless interaction systems are increasingly needed. Even before Snowden, we realized that there was a risk of entrusting our information to arbitrary topics on the Internet. However, the post-Snowden argument clearly falls into the hands of those who believe that large organizations and governments routinely seek to extend and exceed their authority. In this way, we recognize that entrusting our information to the organization as a whole is a fundamentally broken model. The chance that an organization won't tamper with our data is simply effort minus expected profits. Given that companies tend to have revenue models that require them to know as many people as possible, realists will realize that the potential for covert abuse is difficult to overestimate.
Web 3.0, or networking as it might be called after Snowden, is a rethink of the things we've used to network, but with a fundamentally different model of interaction. We publish the information we receive publicly. Information that we believe has been agreed is placed in the consensus book. The information we receive as personal data is kept confidential and is never passed on. Communication always occurs over an encrypted channel and only with a pseudonym as the endpoint; never with anything traceable (like an IP address).
In short, we designed the system to mathematically enforce our previous assumptions, because no government or organization can be reasonably trusted. The post-Snowden network has four components: static content publishing, dynamic messages, hopeless transactions, and an integrated user interface.
First, we already have a lot: a decentralized and encrypted system for publishing information. All it does is take the short inherent address of some information (hash, if we're technical) and after a while, return the information itself. New information can be stored there. Once downloaded, we can guarantee that this is correct information because the address is included in it. This static publishing system is responsible for most HTTP(S) jobs and all FTP jobs. There have been many implementations of this technology, but the easiest to cite is BitTorrent. Whenever you click on a BitTorrent magnetic link, you only tell your client to download the data whose internal address (hash) matches it.
On Web 3.0, this piece of technology is used to publish and download any (possibly large) static information that we wish to share. As with BitTorrent, we may encourage others to maintain and share this information; However, when combined with other parts of Web 3.0, we can do this more efficiently and accurately. Due to the incentive framework embedded in the protocol, we became (still at this level) a DDoS evidence-based design. How's that for a bonus?
The second part of Web 3.0 is a low-level identity-based messaging system. It is used for communication between people on the network. It uses strong cryptography to provide various guarantees on messages. They can be encrypted with a public identity key to ensure that only that identity can decrypt them. They can be signed with the sender's private key to ensure that it really comes from the sender and to provide the recipient with secure confirmation of receipt for communications. Shared confidentiality can provide a way for secure communication, including between groups, without the need for receipts.
Because each offers the best logistics for messages, the use of addresses at the transmission protocol level becomes redundant; Addresses that used to consist of users or ports and IP addresses are now just hashes. Messages will have a lifespan, so a distinction can be made between messages that someone wants to "live" as long as possible to ensure they see as many identities as possible and instant alerts that want to be broadcast on the network as quickly as possible. This relates to the dichotomy of latency and longevity.
The actual physical routing occurs via an adaptive network system with game theory. Each partner seeks to maximize its value to the other partner by claiming that the other partner is valuable to them. Partners whose valueless information is compromised and their slots are occupied by connections to other partners, may go unnoticed (or possibly both). To make the partner more useful, messages with certain attributes are requested (e.g., sender address or subject - both unencrypted - starting with a specific bit sequence).
In Web 3.0, this section allows partners to communicate in real time, update and organize themselves and publish information, the priority of which is not to be trusted either essentially or later. On traditional networks, this is most of the information carried over HTTP in an AJAX style implementation.
The third part of Web 3.0 is the consensus engine. Bitcoin introduced many of us to the idea of consensus-based applications. However, this is only the first test step. A consensus mechanism is a means of aligning certain interaction rules, in the certainty that future interactions (or lack thereof) will automatically and irrevocably lead to proper implementation, as demonstrated. It is indeed a comprehensive social contract and derives its strength from the effects of a consensus network.
The fact that the effects of refusing one agreement can be felt by others is key to creating a strong social contract, reducing the chances of refusal or willful ignorance. For example, the more isolated a reputation system is from more personal systems of social interaction, the less effective the reputation system will be. A reputation system combined with similar functionality like Facebook or Twitter will work better than without it, as users attach intrinsic value to the opinions of their friends, partners or colleagues. A particularly touching example of this is the difficult question of whether and when to be friends with an employer or date on Facebook.
The consensus engine is used for reliable publication and change of information. This will be done through a fully integrated global transaction processing system. The first working example of this is the Ethereum project. Traditional networks are not primarily about consensus, but rather return to the trust of central authorities like ICANN, Verisign and Facebook and reduce themselves to private and government websites and the software on which they are based.
The fourth and final component of the Web 3.0 experience is the technology that brings it all together; "Browser" and user interface. While it's fun, it's going to be very similar to the browser interface we're already familiar with and love. There will be a URI bar, a back button and of course the biggest part will be displayed in the Dapp view (website/forward website).
With this consensus-based name splitting system (as opposed to Namecoin in the app), URIs can be reduced to front end addresses unique to these apps (i.e. hashes). The Information Publishing System can extend this to the file set required for the front end (eg archives with .html, .js, .css, and .jpg files). This is the static part of the dapp (-let).
There will be some superficial differences; We'll look at the move away from the traditional client-server url model to addresses like "https://addresses/paths" and instead look at newer forms of addresses like "goldcoin" and "uk.gov". Names are dissolved by amicable contracts and are trivially transferred or added by users. The dot will allow some level of name separation - for example, uk.gov may assign the nickname "gov" to the name separator defined by uk. Due to the perpetual nature of information being provided automatically and randomly to browsers via consensus backend updates and partner network support, we will find that Dapps or Dapplets play an important role in our Web 3.0 experience. Whether it's through iconic dynamic always-on infographics like Mac OS docking stations or dynamic dashboard-style daplets, we happen to know what we're interested in.
After the initial synchronization process, page load time is reduced to zero as static data is pre-downloaded and guaranteed to be up-to-date, and dynamic data (delivered via consensus or P2P messaging) is also continuously updated. As long as it syncs, the user experience is really solid, although the information actually displayed may be out of date (though it probably isn't and could be commented on as such). For Web 3.0 users, all interactions are pseudonymous, secure and, for many services, hopeless. For those who need third parties or countries, this tool gives users and application developers the ability to share trust among many different potentially competing entities, greatly reducing the amount of trust that needs to be placed in the hands of each individual entity.
With the separation of front-end and back-end APIs, we will see additional opportunities to use a variety of front-end solutions that provide a superior user experience. For example, the QtQuick and QML Qt technologies can be backup replacements for the HTML/CSS combination of traditional web technologies, providing a natural interface and rich accelerated graphics with minimal syntactic costs and a highly efficient reactive programming paradigm.
The changes will be made gradually.
In Web 2 we will increasingly see websites whose backends use Web 3.0-like components such as Bitcoin, BitTorrent, and Namecoin. This trend will continue, and in fact, Ethereum's Web 3.0 platform will likely be used by websites looking to provide proof of transactions for their content, such as: B. Voting and Exchange Pages. Of course, a system is as secure as its weakest link, and eventually sites migrate themselves to Web 3.0 browsers, which can offer end-to-end security and hopeless interoperability.
Say hello to Web 3.0, a secure social operating system.