kn98 @ kn98 @feddit.nl

Posts

1

Comments

28

Joined

1 yr. ago

No, because one transaction uses as much energy as a normal household in a year. Or something like that.

Both based on Bing’s search engine

Het doet bijna denken aan de Chinese Culturele Revolutie. Kranten, boeken, theater en musea gaan omhoog in BTW-tarief want intellectuele hobby’s. Tokkiehobbies zoals bioscopen en pretparken niet. (Ik hou ook van tokkiehobbies hoor.)

https://archive.ph/T0hFN#0%25

Hier is nog een kopie

Dankje! Ik heb de link inmiddels geüpdatet, nu is de opmaak van de originele pagina behouden.

Initial distribution was through a captcha-protected crypto ‘faucet’. The faucet is still up. Did the developers keep a large part of the coins themselves? I’ve never heard that.

No, because I’m not a trader. It’s not all about the exchange rate for me, but about the utility of the coin.

Most coins exist because other coins exist. Nano and Monero not necessarily.

I like it as a way to donate to creators without revealing my identity. It comes close to handing over cash.

You could also use it to pay for a VPN, but since the VPN provider sees your original IP address anyways, I don’t think that’s useful.

I only like two cryptocurrencies.

Nano: free transactions, each wallet runs it’s own blockchain, so it’s got no negative impact on the environment.

Monero: allows for anonymous transfers

https://archive.ph en https://ghostarchive.org hebben volgens mij niks met archive.org te maken.

Dat klopt, het zijn losse initiatieven. Maar beide zijn goede projecten om aan te doneren, als je het mij vraagt.

Voor de liefhebbers, een kopie van de pagina:

https://archive.ph/T0hFN#0%25

Right. But if things do start to cost money, should that be stopped by laws?

I just want to say that you’re absolutely wonderful with words!

Believing we’re living in the end of times is nothing new. Up til now, it never turned out true.

Why’s that?

I agree with your first two paragraphs.

The third, well, it’s your choice to choose not to have children. That’s fine and I understand. But people shouldn’t feel obligated not to get children to save the climate.

Not that you’re suggesting that, just clarifying.

No stats at all, I just got that impression. It’s silly, but it’s often argued that social media are private platforms, that can decide themselves what content they allow. Do you suggest laws against shadowbanning should be a thing? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

But how is that a consequence of shadowbanning?

Could you name an example of those consequences?