My Accidental Introduction to Web3 (and Why It Might Matter More Than I Thought)

It all started with an Instagram ad.

I wasn’t looking to get into blockchain, crypto, or any of the buzzwords that usually come with them. But the ad caught my attention. A few clicks and a little research later, I ended up with a Web3 domain — not something rented through a traditional registrar, but one I actually own, recorded permanently on a blockchain.

Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash


That domain is thomaspaul.x — and it’s mine, forever.

Even stranger? I now have a basic website hosted on a decentralized, peer-to-peer network. Not on a server or hosting plan, but on something called IPFS — the InterPlanetary File System.

If you're using a Web3-compatible browser like Brave, you can view it directly at thomaspaul.x. If not, you can still access it using a regular browser here:
👉 web3.thomaspaul.ca

While I’ve explored crypto and blockchain before, the idea of owning a domain on a blockchain — and hosting content across a decentralized network — was totally new. I’m still wrapping my head around it, to be honest. But I’m intrigued.

What really stands out is the potential this technology might offer non-profits and community organizations — the kinds of groups I care about most.

What if decentralized infrastructure could reduce or eliminate hosting costs?
What if it could improve trust through transparent, tamper-proof records?
Or help organizations rely less on centralized platforms?

Right now, it’s just a personal experiment. But the more I learn, the more I see possibilities — especially for mission-driven groups trying to do more with less.

I’ll keep sharing what I discover, what I build, and what inevitably breaks along the way.

Stay tuned — or better yet, visit thomaspaul.x (if your browser supports it),
or try the gateway version: web3.thomaspaul.ca

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Choosing an Alternate Aerodrome with a TAF (Canada)

Image
When filing an IFR flight plan in Canada, pilots are required to list an alternate aerodrome—a suitable airport other than the destination, in case landing at the destination becomes impossible. Photo by Ilyas Dautov on Unsplash Choosing an alternate involves careful consideration of: Location Available approaches Services offered Weather conditions If an aerodrome isn’t suitable as a destination, it likely isn't suitable as an alternate either. Not using a TAF? Learn more about alternate weather requirements using GFAs: Calculating Alternate Weather Requirements for Aerodromes with GFAs. Regulatory Requirements The Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) state: CAR 602.122  Except as otherwise authorized by the Minister in an air operator certificate or in a special authorization issued under subsection 604.05(2), no pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in IFR flight unless the IFR flight plan or IFR flight itinerary that has been filed for the flight under section 602.73 incl...
Read more

Understanding BECMG, TEMPO, and PROB in IFR Alternate Planning

Image
When filing an IFR flight plan in Canada, selecting a legal alternate isn't always as simple as checking the TAF for good weather. If a forecast includes BECMG, TEMPO, or PROB, those modifiers directly affect whether an airport qualifies as an alternate under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Photo by John McArthur on Unsplash Here’s how each term works and what it means for your IFR alternate decision-making. Why Do Alternates Matter? Under CAR 602.122 , unless specific conditions are met, IFR flights must file an alternate aerodrome that has forecast weather above alternate minima during the ETA. However, forecasts using BECMG, TEMPO, or PROB must be interpreted according to specific rules outlined by Transport Canada, notably in the CAP GEN – IFR Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima. ✈ BECMG (Becoming) BECMG indicates a gradual and permanent change expected to occur over the specified time frame. The change is not instantaneous but occurs progressively during the window. ...
Read more

Understanding Commercial Approach Ban for Canadian Operators

Image
Canada’s approach ban rules are more complex for commercial operations than for general aviation. This post aims to explain how to interpret the approach ban for commercial operators, both with and without an Operations Specification (ops spec). When you’re ready, try this interactive Commercial Approach Ban Quiz . Quick Review Commercial operators in Canada fall under Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). CAR 700.10 states that for an aircraft to conduct an approach, the required visibility must meet what is outlined in the Canadian Air Pilot (CAP). If the visibility for the intended runway is below the required value, the approach cannot be started or must be discontinued unless: The aircraft has passed the Final Approach Fix (FAF) inbound or is on the final approach course where there is no FAF. The aircraft is on a training flight, and the pilot-in-command (PIC) has informed air traffic control (ATC) that a missed approach will be conducted at or prior to the decisi...
Read more