skyzadev

Whether this change is good or bad is still to be seen, however, what is great is that the elephant in the room is finally being addressed - how are all these social issues REALLY affecting (tech) companies today? So far we have just accepted that it's all good and the way we have been dealing with it is fine and we are better off this way. But are we really?

Let's stop fighting and start figuring out how to properly handle deep social issues troubling the workplace today.

Today it's really hard to exchange crypto for fiat without proving your identity first.

Seeing as NFTs are in the same space, I can imagine similar regulations will get enforced for NFC market places.

As for the effectiveness of such measures, well, that is another discussion for another time!

I am not sure why I got down votes here. If you are buying a NFT for an artwork that is not confirmed to have been created by the author of that artwork then surely you are just stupid?

Only Banksy can mint an NFT for his artwork for it to be of ANY value. The same way that only Banksy can create Banksy art.

Public-private key encryption is how you verify that something was signed by the original author.

Ommiting the fact that it's a drawing of the bridge and not the actual bridge from the title seems very biased and intentional.

Private keys are what's stopping other people from selling unauthentic NFTs for the same thing.

Seems plausible if you can cover all traces of where your crypto came from, and considering NFTs stay unregulated by legislation/governments.

If NFTs remain a thing after all the hype & fake demand fades then I am sure regulation for NFT purchases will come into effect to combat such practices.

There likely is some foul play involved in some cases yes that's for sure. For example this Beeple thing looks like it's a scam to pump a token which Beeple has a stake in so that they can then offload the token at high prices to new unsuspecting buyers.

However just on your point "Anyone can mint an NFT that points to whatever" - sure they can but those NFTs will be and should be worthless. You are able to prove an NFT came from the actual author since it would have been signed with their private key.

When all the fake demand settles we will see if there is any real demand here or not. I myself have no interest in buying any NFTs, at least not yet :).

NFTs are HIGHLY inflated right now - paying $2mil for a tweet is NOT real demand. It's marketing by people with a stake in the industry. Justin Sun who bid $2mil for Jack Dorsey's tweet runs a blockchain network called Tron. I think NFTs will stabilize at some point but it isn't going to go away that's for sure.

So, is the Economist any good? I'm thinking HN is a better source and it's free.

Why has it taken us so long to get features like this implemented?

p.s. Firefox ftw :).

What I am really getting out all of this is that at some point we will hit the human population limit that earth can sustain, even with renewable energy sources.

Whether or not that limit is actually reachable and something we should actually worry about I don't know. i.e: is there enough physical space for that many people on earth where each person uses X amount of renewable energy where the sum of X is greater than the amount of energy the earth can actually capture without being negatively affected.

I was indirectly referring back to my original post above if you did not notice. And no I'm not high, just having a conversation about Bitcoin energy usage in relation to renewable and sustainable energy technology.

So you are saying we will capture so much energy from the sun that the entire planet will become inhospitable. Do we then just keep burning fossil fuels until earth becomes inhospitable instead? Or do we kill ourselves and stop the need for energy use entirely? Remember that humans will forever have energy needs as we advance.

Our sun is shooting out so much energy that is not getting used at all. That is flushing (sustainable) energy down the drain!

Electricity usage will forever be a human need and people need to realize and accept that. Taking down bitcoin because it's software that runs on computers that uses electricity is not the answer here - renewable and sustainable energy is the answer. Everybody is just echoing the same headline they read on some news article about bitcoin using a lot of energy without thinking it through properly.

I'm from South Africa and about 70% of my family and friends have switched to using Telegram now with more people joining every week. Signal nobody uses unfortunately.

It's more about preventing companies like Facebook getting their hands on everyone's data and abusing it as well as preventing organizations like Signal themselves using / abusing this data. We won't ever truly know if Signals data makes it's way into the hands of government security agencies but I would say it more than likely does or it will if they want it to in the future.

If some government wants to get you they will get you, probably via your operating system... Signal won't help you. If that's your concern then you gotta stay off the internet to be honest!

I'd gladly use DDG but they still suck compared to Google when it comes to searching for anything dev related.