对 Web 3.0 的理解

Web 2.0 时代，我们说的 Web 开发指普通的前后端开发，前端用所谓的三大框架 React.js、Vue.js、Angular.js 结合组件库，后端用 Spring 全家桶，加上各种中间件 Zookeeper、Kafka、Elasticsearch 之类，还有常用的数据库 MySQL、Oracle，就是 Web 开发的常用技术栈。

In the Web 2.0 era, what we call Web development refers to normal back-and-end development, with the so-called three-fold framework React.js, Vue.js, Angular.js combined with the assembly library, and the back end with the Spring family drums, with various intermediates such as Zookeeper, Kafka, Elasticsearch, and the usual databases MySQL, Oracle, which are commonly used technology stores developed by Web.

Web 3.0 开发的技术栈，可能会演进为 Remix、Hardhat、Ruffle 这些智能合约的开发工具和框架，人们像关注 Java 的语言特性一样去关注 Solidity，以及各种区块链节点的搭建运行调用、二次开发，甚至及区块链节点本身的开发等等。当然，很难简单地把这些技术栈去和 Web 2.0 一一对应。一个简单的例子是，当你从事区块链开发的工作，你已经很难用前端开发或者后端开发来形容自己的工作内容了，就只能是区块链开发，或者智能合约开发，或者其他的描述方式。

Web 3.0 develops technology stores that may evolve into tools and frameworks for the development of smart contracts such as Remix, Hardhat, Ruflé, which focus on Solidity as much as on Java's linguistic characteristics, as well as on building and running calls, secondary development, and even the development of block chains themselves. Of course, it is difficult simply to match these technologies with Web 2.0. A simple example is that when you work on block-chain development, it is difficult to describe the content of your work with front-end or back-end development, but only block-link development, or smart contract development, or other description.

现在已经有一些岗位在用「web3 开发」的形容了，不过我们要区分清楚 Web 3.0 和 web3 不是一回事，目前很多岗位说的 web3 指以太坊的那个 web3 框架。我们需要一个新的描述，同时我们需要有一个更好的、更有前景的职业定位，那就是 Web 3.0 开发。

There are jobs that are now described as "web3 development," but we need to distinguish between Web 3.0 and web3 is not the same thing, and what many posts are saying is that web3 is the web3 framework that uses Taiku. We need a new description, and we need a better and more promising career orientation, that is, Web 3.0 development.

我这里想说的是，要相信我们走在正确的道路上。

What I want to say here is to believe that we are on the right path.

区块链的一级市场，指比特币、以太坊这种原生的链。二级市场更多是基于这些链，衍生出的一些项目，基于以太坊的项目尤其多，Layer 2、预言机、NFT、ENS，都属于二级市场。

The primary market for block chains is Bitcoin, Etheria, the raw chain. The secondary market is more based on these chains, and some projects are derived from them, especially from the latter's projects, with Layer 2, Prophecy, NFT, ENS, all of which belong to the secondary market.

有一些团队是做一级市场也就是区块链开发的，Solana、Filecoin、Neo 都是在以太坊之后出现的，Dfinity 的 IC 也是处于活跃的一种一级市场的例子，再比如像 Bitcoin SV 是在做 “支持智能合约的比特币” 这样的事情。

There are teams that do first-level market, or block chain development, and Solana, Filecoin, Neo are all after Ether, and the IC of Dfinity is also an example of an active first-level market, and things like Bitcoin SV are doing "bitcoins that support smart contracts."

还有很多创业团队是在做二级市场，比如有从 360 出来的去做智能合约的安全，把合约扫描一遍报出安全漏洞给你；还有做 NFT 的交易协议，去定制一些类似 NFT 交易所的 API，想建立通用的交易网络；还有炒元宇宙概念的，给虚拟人物定制不同样式的衣服；也有基于 IC 做去中心化邮箱的等等。以太坊的各种扩容方案当然也算二级市场，OP 前段时间还发行 token 了。

There are a lot of start-up teams working on second-tier markets, such as security from 360 to do smart contracts, scanning contracts for security holes, and making NFT deals, customizing some NFT-like APIs to create generic trading networks, as well as the concept of a punctuated universe, customizing different styles for virtual characters, IC-based off-centre mailboxes, and so on. The various outreach programs in the Taikum are also, of course, second-tier markets.

从商业角度没有什么高下之分，从技术角度也不好说简单和难，不过我觉得还是一级市场更基础一些，但是技术上的发展相对缓慢，花样没那么多。具体倾向于哪一种看个人意愿了，这里想提醒的是，Web 3.0 开发是统称，要了解这些不同层级市场的区别。

From a commercial point of view, it's not easy or difficult to say from a technical point of view, but I think it's more basic in the first level of markets, but it's a relatively slow technological development, and it's not so many things. What is the specific type of personal will that is preferred, to remind you that Web 3.0 development is a generic term for understanding the differences between these different levels of markets.

刚才说希望 Web 3.0 是有前景的方向，这个部分想说的是 Web 3.0 的前景也没有那么好。

What we just said was that Web 3.0 is a promising direction, and what this part is trying to say is that Web 3.0 is not so good.

想到这个话题是在关心钱包安全的时候，意识到一个问题，就是账户的私钥一旦泄露，你就永远失去了对账户资产的控制权，或者说别人永远拥有了你账户资产的控制权。

The topic came to mind when concerned about the security of the wallet, realizing that once the private key to the account was revealed, you would lose control of the account's assets forever, or someone else would always have control of the account's assets.

因为我们知道，账户地址是可以从私钥解码出来的，私钥就是你的资产，在备份钱包的时候，备份的就是私钥。你的私钥泄露，就相当于把金钱摆到别人手里，至于别人会不会及时拿走，你能不能在对方动手之前抢回来，那就是另外的问题了。

Because we know that the account address can be decoded from a private key, that the private key is your asset, and that the back-up key is the private key when you back up your wallet. The leak of your private key is like putting the money in someone else's hands.

这个和传统的账户模型是不一样的，你不可能说你的用户密码是你的财产，因为中心化账户是基于 KYC 的，你只要能证明自己的身份，身份证或者指纹或者长相，都可以找回你的财产，因为财产是和你绑定在一起，而不是你的账户，你的账户密码是可以修改的，即使泄露，别人也只能在短时间内拥有你账户的控制权，你把密码改掉，别人就没办法了。

This is not the same as the traditional account model. You can't say that your user password is your property, because the centralized account is based on KYC, and you can recover your property if you can prove your identity, ID or fingerprint or look, because the property is tied to you, not your account, and your account password can be modified, and even if it is leaked, you can only have control of your account in a short period of time, and you can change it.

私钥是不可能更改的，你能做的，就是及时把资产转移到另外的私钥。去中心化的世界有意区分了身份和数字身份的概念，增加了数字身份的主权，但同时也削弱了身份对数字身份的控制能力。

Private keys are impossible to change, and all you can do is move assets to another private key in a timely manner. A decentralized world deliberately distinguishes between the concepts of identity and digital identity, adding to the sovereignty of digital identity, but also undermining the ability of identity to control digital identity.

这里衍生出的问题就是，去中心化的资产安全吗？把钱拿在自己手里，比把钱存到银行，更加安全吗？考虑到比特币诞生的背景，是出于对中心化机构的不信任，才有了去中心化的理念。

The question arises here: Is decentralized assets safe? Is it safer to take money in your own hands than to put it in a bank? Given the background of Bitcoin’s birth, the idea of decentralizing was born out of mistrust of centralized institutions.

想想吧！一开始就是没有中心化机构的，人们以物换物，打一开始，就是去中心化的世界。后来为了降低个人保护自己财产的成本，为了增加对坏人作恶更有力的惩罚机制，人们共同组建起中心化机构，保护大部分人的利益。

Think about it. In the first place, there is no central institution, people change things, and in the first place, they go to the central world. Then, in order to reduce the cost of protecting one’s own property, and in order to increase the mechanisms for punishing bad people, people work together to set up central institutions to protect the interests of the majority of the population.

现在炒作去中心化的理念，不正是一种历史的倒退吗？去中心化并非新产生的事物，而是早就已经存在的、被人们选择性抛弃的东西。

Isn't the idea of decentralizing now a historical step backwards? Decentralizing is not something new, but something that already exists and has been left out of choice.

不过现在的去中心化和以前的去中心化，最大的不同就是现在的技术手段更为先进，有可能做到之前做不到的事情，把世界推到一种新的愿景上。但是也要注意现在的技术不是那么先进，还远没有发展到那种程度，区块链的技术瓶颈非常多。

But the difference between de-centralization and previous de-centreization is that the technological tools are now more advanced, and it is possible to do what was not possible before, and to push the world into a new vision. But it is also important to note that the technology is not so advanced, it is far from that, and there are so many technical bottlenecks in the chain of blocks.

所以我的观点是，现在的去中心化理念不是中心化世界的演进，而是中心化世界的补充。在接下来的时间，中心化和去中心化会同时存在。

So my point is that the concept of decentralisation now is not about the evolution of the world at the centre, but rather about the addition of the world at the centre. In the next few days, centralization and decentralization will coexist.

前段时间有一件搞笑的事情，有一天，LUNA 的价格早上还是 80 美元一个，晚上的时候就跌到 1 美元一个了。在接下来的三四天，LUNA 的价格从 1 美元，跌到了 0.00001 美元。几天之内，近万倍的跌幅。曾经号称前十的加密货币，突然归零了。

There was a funny thing about the previous period: one day, LUNA prices were 80 dollars a morning, and one dollar a night. In the next three or four days, LUNA prices fell from US$ 1 to US$ 0.00001. Within a few days, nearly a million times the drop.

我粗浅的理解是，UST 有一个交易池，当短时间有大量卖出的时候，交易池会有小幅的倾斜。当时先是小幅的波动，然后随着社交媒体的传播，大量散户失去了对 UST 的信任，开始大幅卖出，越卖价格越低。Terra 团队是有 5 万个比特币作为储备的，当时也及时打进去想把平衡拉回来，结果比特币也在跌，质押进去的比特币在结算的时候已经不值预期那么多钱了，没能把价格拉回来，后来 Terra 团队也放弃了，任由价格下跌。

My rough understanding is that UST has a trading pool in which, when there is a large sale in short time, there will be a small tilt. First, there was a small wave of volatility, then, with social media spreading, a large number of dispersed households lost their trust in UST, started selling it up, and the prices went down. Terra’s team, with 50,000 bitcoins in reserve, went in and tried to pull the balance back in time, and then Bitcoins fell, and the pledged bitcoins fell when they were settled, and failed to pull the price back, and then the Terra team gave up and the prices fell.

LUNA 的事情发生后不久，看到有的人讨论说，LUNA 还有机会吗？有一种机会是，Terra 团队还有 20 亿，等 UST 的价格跌到总市值小于 20 亿的时候，Terra 团队可以把市场上所有 UST 都买下来，销毁掉多余的 UST，只留 20 亿个，UST 的价格就可以回到 1 美元了。不过 Terra 团队可能没打算那么做，后来发行了新的 LUNA。

Shortly after what happened to LUNA, it was discussed that there was a chance that the Terra team would have a further 2 billion dollars. When the UST price fell to a total market value of less than 2 billion, the Terra team could buy all the USTs in the market and destroy the redundant USTs, leaving only 2 billion, and the UST would have returned to $1. But the Terra team might not have planned to do so, and the new LUNA would have been released.

LUNA 的失败不意味着算法稳定币的失败，有的团队也在研发新的算法稳定币，据说是想把美联储的运行模式，用算法模拟出来，正在写白皮书。

The failure of LUNA does not mean the failure of algorithms to stabilize the currency. Some teams are also developing new algorithms to stabilize the currency, reportedly to simulate the Fed's operating model by algorithms and are working on white papers.

在 Web 3.0 宏大的时代背景下，LUNA 的事情就算是先行的笑料吧。

In the context of the great age of Web 3.0, the LUNA thing is a prelude to laugh.

简而言之，我的结论是，Web5 一定不会成功。不管它叫 Web5 还是 Web6、Web7，它的理念还是围绕去中心化、SSI 那一套，还在我理解的 Web 3.0 的范畴之内。如果认真了解过 DIDs 的理念，就知道现阶段所谓的 Web5 完全是噱头了。

In short, my conclusion is that Web5 will not succeed. Whether it's called Web5 or Web6, Web7, it's still about decentralizing, SSI, in the context of what I understand about Web 3.0. If you really know what DIDs think, you'll know that the so-called Web5 is completely preposterous at this stage.