Procedural

I agree. This is another reason to stop trying to make it happen, when it wasn't a happy marriage in the first place.

Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. They spoke Russian. They married Russians. It happened. But it's a history now. No one can force-continue the marriage.

Donate it to a kid in Yemen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472...

Any names of good programmers you're talking about?

> Another reason we don't like Russians is that they are afraid to stand up to their own government.

What about billions of Chinese that are afraid to stand up to the communist party?

How easy it is to operate a computer is orthogonal to Free Software vs whatever vs whatever else. Free Software had enough time and resources to make a computer turn on instantly, for example, but they chose today's common path of incompetence. For Security, Of Course, You Want To Be Secure, Right? Here, Eat A Cactus, It's Very Secure.

> After all it could be hacked? Or faked?

The whole premise of blockchain is that no transaction can be altered. What happened -- happened, unlike someone's text or screenshots on someone's servers on the Internet.

> Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.

Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.

> The supporter could ask bank to mail him a receipt from the transfer. And then show this transfer or have it notarized in most extreme case. Thus proofing he made it. We already have solutions for this.

No one will believe the supporter. The receipt may be a fake text he/she made.

> Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.

But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.

> So if the artists try to go back on the agreement, he can be sued.

Sued about what? The supporters want the artist to keep the money, there are no legal conflicts here other than that the artist may lie that he/she is supported by particular people. Unlike in bank case, you and me and anyone else may see for ourselves who is supported by whom.

> And why would anyone need to be able to verify that?

Because, in the bank example, after a bank transaction happens, the artist may not like a particular supporter because, for example, the supporter may be a white cis male who doesn't like the left bullies, so the artist may lie that the transaction happened at all, saying that he/she didn't receive any money from the supporter. In this case, and other such cases, there must be an independent log of events that actually happened, despite what people may say.

I specifically wrote verifiably. In your bank case, no one will be able to verify, independently of the supporter or the artist, that the transaction happened.

The idea of supporting the artists you like directly and verifiably.

Yes.

Gotta wait for web 4.0 for that

Can we see the nice people behind this nice website?

Wanna go for a walk?

Maybe it's night's quietness