Difference Between WEB2 And WEB3 Briefly Describe- Best Guide

Spread the love

Difference between Web2 and Web3 refers to the version of the internet most of us know today. An internet dominated by companies that provide services in exchange for your data.

Web3, in the context of Ethereum, refers to decentralized apps that run on the blockchain. These are apps that allow anyone to participate without monetizing their data.

Difference Between Web2 And Web3

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 (also known as participative (or participatory) web and social web) refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture, and interoperability (i.e., compatibility with other products, systems, and devices) for end-users.

The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and later popularized by Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004. Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions, it does not denote a formal change like the World Wide Web, but merely describes a general change that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older, more static websites of the original Web.


Many Web3 developers have chosen to build apps because of Ethereum’s inherent decentralization:

A Web 3.0 allows users to interact and collaborate through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts with the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to passively viewing the content.

Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies (“tagging” keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), image sharing sites (e.g., Flickr), hosted services, Web applications (“apps”), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

  • Anyone who is on the network has permission to use the service – or in other words, permission isn’t required.
  • No one can block you or deny you access to the service.
  • Payments are built-in via the native token, ether (ETH).
  • Ethereum is Turing-complete, meaning you can pretty much program anything.



  • Twitter can censor any account or tweet
  • Payment services may decide to not allow payments for certain types of work
  • Servers for gig-economy apps could go down and affect worker income


  • Web3 tweets would be uncensorable because control is decentralized
  • Web3 payment apps require no personal data and can’t prevent payments
  • Web3 servers can’t go down – they use Ethereum, a decentralized network of 1000s of computers as their backend

This doesn’t mean that all services need to be turned into a damp. These examples are illustrative of the main differences between web2 and web3 services.


Web3 has some limitations right now:

  • Scalability – transactions are slower on web3 because they’re decentralized. Changes to state, like a payment, need to be processed by a miner and propagated throughout the network.
  • UX – interacting with web3 applications can require extra steps, software, and education. This can be a hurdle to adoption.
  • Accessibility – the lack of integration in modern web browsers makes web3 less accessible to most users.
  • Cost – most successful apps put very small portions of their code on the blockchain as it’s expensive.


In the table below, we list some of the broad-stroke advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized digital networks.

Centralized Systems

Low network diameter (all participants are connected to a central authority); information propagates quickly, as propagation is handled by a central authority with lots of computational resources.

Usually higher performance (higher throughput, fewer total computational resources expended) and easier to implement.

In the event of conflicting data, a resolution is clear and easy: the ultimate source of truth is the central authority.

Single point of failure: malicious actors may be able to take down the network by targeting the central authority.

Coordination among network participants is much easier and is handled by a central authority. Central authority can compel network participants to adopt upgrades, protocol updates, etc., with very little friction.

Central authority can censor data, potentially cutting off parts of the network from interacting with the rest of the network.

Participation in the network is controlled by the central authority.

Decentralized Systems

The furthest participants on the network may potentially be many edges away from each other. Information broadcast from one side of the network may take a long time to reach the other side.

Usually lower performance (lower throughput, more total computational resources expended) and more complex to implement.

A protocol (often complex) is needed for dispute resolution if peers make conflicting claims about the state of data in which participants are meant to be synchronized.

No single point of failure: network can still function even if a large proportion of participants are attacked/taken out.

Coordination is often difficult, as no single agent has the final say in network-level decisions, protocol upgrades, etc. In the worst case, the network is prone to fracturing when there are disagreements about protocol changes.

Censorship is much harder, as information has many ways to propagate across the network.

Anyone can participate in the network; there are no “gatekeepers.” Ideally, the cost of participation is very low.

Note that these are general patterns that may not hold in every network. Furthermore, in reality, the degree to which a network is centralized/decentralized lies on a spectrum; no network is entirely centralized or entirely decentralized.

for more details please visit our website

Spread the love

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.