I’ve been very much enjoying FSNotes [0] as a replacement for Notational Velocity (and nvALT) which are both abandonware at this point. FSNotes is a native app, is FLOSS and is actively maintained. It lacks some of the advanced features of Obsidian (like Graph View) but it has the essentials (hyperlinks and tag sidebar).
> The insurer must earn enough income from investing the deposits to cover losses and operating expenses for the model to be economically viable
The above is a quote from the Wikipedia article. I suspect that with interest rates at an all time low, the environment is not exactly ripe for this kind of insurance model.
Not questioning this dang, but would be useful to add something about trollish usernames in the guidelines, and perhaps clarify what qualifies as trollish.
> It’s nice to have the option to be completely decentralised (…)
I think "nice" downplays the importance of the possibility of self-custody. Despite the majority of people perhaps not opting to control their own keys, the mere possibility has interesting game theoretical implications that will keep neobanks like Coinbase in check.
I am old enough to remember what Panic claimed to be the first ever emoji domain in 2011 [0]. But a quick look at the relevant wikipedia entry sets the record straight [1].
> Similarly, for block chains, mining only occurs when the thing being mined has value. NFTs would not be mined if people weren't using them. Therefore I would absolutely call them an ecological disaster.
The point is that energy consumption due to mining on the Ethereum network does not scale with transaction count. So it does not matter if NFTs are issued ("minted") or not. They add no marginal energy cost in the mining process. That is why calling them an "ecological disaster" is a misnomer.
I know it sounds catchy to say that NFTs are an ecological disaster, but that statement is sensational and not accurate.
NFTs do not cause carbon emissions themselves, just like you don't add carbon emissions by occupying a seat on a public transportation bus. The bus is doing its daily route and has a fixed amount of emissions per day whether it has any occupants or not. This analogy breaks quickly, so I wouldn't look too much into it.
Maybe a better analogy is to think of your WiFi router. Its energy use is (predominantly) static regardless of how many packets you route through it. So by browsing, you are not causing additional carbon emissions.
In more technical terms: more transactions do not cause more hashrate. Ethereum's CO2 footprint does not scale with transactional count. So asking people to use the network less will not cause the hashrate to go down. The only way you reduce energy consumption is by getting miners to mine less, which triggers the protocol to adjust the mining difficulty accordingly. As laid out above, this has nothing to do with how many transactions are happening on ETH, or whether NFTs are being minted on it.
> businesses start hoarding crypto tokens instead of investing in building stuff
Share buybacks. Tech businesses are buying their own shares to pump the stock price (and their options' value) rather than investing in building stuff.
> At the city level, [Miami mayor] Suarez’s ambitions are equally ambitious. He’s “looking at” ways to pay municipal employees a percentage of their salary in bitcoin and allow residents to use bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for “payments and fees,” including taxes.
Great talk [0] given during the 2016 congress touching on the Amadeus flight booking system and the danger of posting your boarding pass on social media
[1]: https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology...