Isn't a whole guiding principle of crypto that code is law, rules are rules with no exceptions, and if you end up getting screwed over by the rules you opted into then it's your fault for not doing due diligence? The irony of immutable smart contract proponents begging humans to let them backdoor around a contract is palpable.
This is a Web2 relay to access Web3. If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot.
Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.
The equivalent to the relay in that case is just the browser. If control of the browser passes to someone else - say because the dev is in jail and the server or signing key is seized - you now have a silently-self-updating piece of software running code from an unknown third party. This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
The browser is client side code, that runs independently on millions of people's computers. It is not a centralized relay, and control over someone's browser can't be "passed to someone else". On Chrome, all updates have to be manually approved by the user - it is not "silently-self-updating".
A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve.
>>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding.
>>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there".
I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.
This isn't a problem inherent to centralized "Web2" services, it's entirely possible to share custody of a domain name so no one person is a single point of failure if they drop dead or go to prison for getting too friendly with North Korea. You'd hope that a proponent of smart contracts would be familiar with planning for contingencies like that, since with those there's nobody to appeal to if something goes wrong later, but Griffith didn't think that far ahead.
Um, use Brave, or any other decent web3 browswer. Put in any .eth URL, and it works fine. Eth.link was a crutch. A silly hack that makes it so you can take a .eth URL, add ".link" to it, and get onto .eth sites without having to use a modern browser.
Thankfully, not querying random blockchains is not what makes a modern browser.
Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
The original comment, for which a citation was requested, was:
"If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot."
The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
No, the comment implied that browsers not allowing you to access websites on your favourite shitcoin without going through a normal TLD are not modern browsers.
When these two words have been very obviously selected and added in purpose to make people believe that web3 is the future (when all it is is a pitiful attempt at both hijacking a term and a pitiful attempt at getting people to pay for literally any interaction online) and that anyone not having access to it is in the past, yes.
Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
If you think Web3 is not the future, that's a perfectly reasonable position to have, and possibly correct, but it'd be more constructive to substantiate it instead of merely spewing vitriol and ad hominem.
