One new difference in our favor: we can reasonably have meetings online, no longer needing a large shared space.
One new difference in our favor: we can reasonably have meetings online, no longer needing a large shared space.
“Those who make community protest impossible will make hacks inevitable."
― John F. Kennedy, pretty much
We kicked “this quarter” thinking into high gear when Nixon permanently increased inflation.
Sounds like it’s time for the deniably encrypted phone.
Even locked if they want the info in your phone they are probably getting it. They would have access to some of the best forensics teams and equipment.
I think some of the concern is when cops will use force illegally and then lie about it, so they wouldn’t necessarily have access to forensics.
Who gives more fucks - the man who gives a fuck, or the man who gives a fuck about the giving of fucks?
That would lose a ton of profits!
I’m warning potential readers about the scam you’re promoting. If you don’t care, then stop.
If a cryptocurrency involves trusting a central foundation at any point, it’s a scam. It’s an unnecessary security hole, and one would be damn foolish to invest in it just because the hole remains unused.
That’s whataboutism - a low carbon footprint doesn’t change whether or not Nano is a scam. My Excel spreadsheet has an even lower carbon footprint than the AI you’re pitching here. If they own a large enough majority to control the network, then they can dictate policy or favor their own blocks for free money.
What would be a controlling share with Nano?
51%
The largest representatives according to voting weight were the exchanges last time I checked
Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.
So I mean, while I can’t prove that the foundation held more coins than they claimed, I’m unaware that there was ever a sign of them actually doing so.
The sign is them creating a design that expects this tremendous amount of trust. It’s extremely conspicuous to create a vulnerability that only the foundation can exploit, that can go undetected if they don’t make a huge mistake.
It has to come from somewhere, right? How would you fairly distribute coins that aren’t mined?
You can’t fairly distribute a premine. Don’t use coins with premines.
I’m glad you’re not here to shill Nano, but it is a scam and you are promoting it.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/premining.asp
You are one of those suckers if you believe every distributed coin was solved by a CAPTCHA. The centralized(!) foundation pinky promises that they didn’t sock puppet ten times as many suckers at launch, and then keep a controlling share of stake permanently.
A better way to do the initial “airdrop” is to not do centralized issuance at all, because anyone would be a complete fool to trust any crypto foundation.
Nano is a scam. They mined all the coins up front, and then told the most gullible rubes in the universe that everyone else had to fill out CAPTCHAs too.
Intuitive chalkboard economics lead to the net loss conclusion above. Experimental reality as described in the study says otherwise.
She’s not run of the mill - she admitted she was wrong and apologized. Most of them are like Vance and just BS harder.
I would infer from what they wrote that they mean anything not for profit. Seeding isn’t “fair use” in the legal definition.
No it does, I still remember all the produce codes and find myself tetrising my own grocery bags. A good cashier is faster, cleaner, and saves you money.
Yes, but how exactly that distorts the market is counterintuitive.
What follows is incorrect
It’s a price floor, which creates a deadweight loss.
Since we’re also consumers, it’s a net loss.
Remember that a definition is not an endorsement of a word’s use.
Be sure to use a VPN or Tor!