It’s ok dude, I’m not trying to sway you. I’m not invested into the topic enough to defend something against theoretical and unsubstantiated claims. Use what you want or don’t

Which part of systemd’s config is not text-based? The only “database” it uses for configuration is the filesystem

Can’t make it right for everyone… Some people will complain about mining and the energy consumption (Bitcoin is supposed to currently use about 850 kWh per transaction), others complain about a supposedly unfair premine. They didn’t even hold an ICO.

51%

That’s not currently a required percentage, you need 67% of votes to confirm a transaction. Which in turn means 33% are enough to stall the network. But even then, what would their gain be, apart from owning more of their own currency?

Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.

You can, but then you can no longer vote. And if you can’t vote, holding Nano does nothing.

I don’t think there’s a cryptocurrency today that comes without downsides, be it high resource usage, lack of anonymity or others, if they’re not straight up money grabs and a copy paste of another random junk on ETH. Bitcoin is not an option for me because of the monster mining has become - I don’t blame Satoshi, this is something I didn’t expect either, but it’s insanity currently.

What would be a controlling share with Nano? The largest representatives according to voting weight were the exchanges last time I checked, which would imply most of the currency is in “circulation” as in no longer held by the foundation. And even then, voting weight doesn’t grant you an immediate advantage in Nano, as there’s no staking.

So I mean, while I can’t prove that the foundation held now coins than they claimed, I’m unaware that there was ever a sign of them actually doing so.

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.

It has to come from somewhere, right? How would you fairly distribute coins that aren’t mined?

Anyhow, I’m not here to shill the coin, the ones I bought I bought off an exchange long after the original issuance and all I wanted to show was an example for a good technical solution. Not perfect mind you, just something of which I thought is a positive example where it’s just used as a means of payment.

Nano wasn’t mined, it was all created at inception, and as you correctly said distributed via CAPTCHA; this was to disincentivize or stop people running bots to claim it automatically. After the distribution period ended, the Nano foundation burned undistributed coins minus an amount that they kept to ensure further development. This fund ran out in 2023 if I’m not mistaken. It’s now being developed by volunteers.

Do you know a better idea how such an initial airdrop would be done?

Lol that picture is good but the little girl has a baby hand.

I’ve seen presidents with smaller hands… anyhow, NanoGPT doesn’t run the models themselves, they have professional accounts for the models with the respective providers and basically resell access in per request amounts without an account or anything (your account is just a wallet address, no name or email required). I just wanted to showcase something where cryptocurrency can actually fill a niche.

That’s very nice of you but I won’t deprive you of your coins, another time maybe

All good, I still keep to the idea of cryptocurrency as a decentralized currency for the internet and have no issue with tipping some away if people actually engage in discussion honestly

If you want, I’ll send you some to an address of your choosing; you can just use nault.cc as a wallet.

Due to how the site works, you can choose what model etc. they have without ever sending them any money.

like for myself I don’t have any crypto, or at least crypto I can access (lost my monero keys)

Didn’t we all? Nobody warned me of the dangers of boating

It’s true that you need to factor in the conversion fees. The same however is true, maybe for a smaller fee, when converting between fiat currencies, though my bank is usually pretty fair. Other providers - again PayPal being an offender and often ATM operators - will often have worse rates.

NanoGPT itself doesn’t sell crypto I think, they include sellers for convenience. I provided mine years ago on Kraken which is a market exchange.

For testing, I just transferred 0.1 XNO to them, which arrived basically instantly without fees, it was credited to the wallet before I switched back windows to my browser.

I’ll try a prompt and get back here if you want? I mean this is not really the core of the discussion but for completion’s sake…

Edit: I created this with the Flux Pro model (the most expensive one I think) for about 0.1 XNO:

I mean if it’s competitive, why not?

The thing is it’s unlikely you’d find a payment provider making this viable. For example, PayPal charges 49 US cents as a minimum fee, or 39 Eurocents. Even just credit card companies charge 5 cents fixed, so cheap payment processors will charge you about 10 cents per transaction plus variable rates and possibly a monthly fee.

It’s just used as a means of payment for very small amounts, even less than a single cent if you calculate in dollars.

If the latter we can self host AI.

Sure you can; I certainly can’t, lacking the equipment, and the investment would be much higher than any return on it.

But beyond that many dislike crypto for gas cost and same for AI so strapping them together is way less palatable.

Nano, as I said, has no fees, and there’s no miners, it’s quite ecologically friendly. It does have other challenges (for example only being pseudonymous and fully traceable, plus fighting spam is an ongoing battle, no standard way of association a payment with an invoice). But I always liked its premise and it does make sense for such cases for me.

The beauty with how they implemented is that there’s no explicit about apart from a wallet address they create for you, saved in a cookie, so you can straight up use it.

I’m not trying to argue that this is somehow revolutionary or the right way to do it, but it manages to leverage the advantages quote well in my opinion.

Which is a shame but not that surprising

crypto is cancer.

I respectfully disagree. There are legitimate use cases do make sense. Of course, these don’t make tech bros rich quick so you don’t often hear about them.

One of them that I like the idea of is NanoGPT. It’s a frontend to various AI services where you pay per request instead of making accounts for each and pay with Nano. I haven’t used it yet, but the currency makes a lot of sense there, as it is feeless and requests can cost less than a cent.

Another one is Monero for goods and services that might be illicit under one’s jurisdiction. I don’t want to go into the discussion whether this is right or wrong; all I want to say is that laws can be nonsensical and dangerous.

A kind of interesting phenomenon. He comes in with his dog, cries that he doesn’t have a place to stay, Jon allows it for as long as needed and then… he just vanishes one day, leaving Odie with Jon, never to contact them again. Did something happen between the two? Was he ever real or a product of Jon’s mind? A wiki states:

According to Davis, Lyman’s original purpose was to be someone who Jon could actually talk to and express other ideas — a role gradually taken over by Garfield, himself.

It doesn’t reveal who gave Lyman that purpose; it could be that it was Jon himself who, over the years, got less attached to reality, so he got done with talking to and interacting with Garfield.

That or it’s just a lazy uninspired comic that only has a minimum level of continuity and doesn’t care to explain why a former choir character suddenly vanishes.

If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.

And why are content creators on YouTube? Because it offers the option to monetize as good video creation requires time and effort that you could put into a job otherwise - not only a single person’s, mind you. The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn’t a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification, probably even rightfully so - but you can’t have a platform paying out the creators without getting anything from the users, be it a subscription fee or delivering ads.

I feel the criticism about this is somewhat misguided here, compared to things like operating systems - Windows has no needed to get worse, it had a sustainable business model, but corporate greed dictated changes for increased monetization. For YouTube, it was clear from the very beginning - or latest when Google bought it - that the business in that form isn’t sustainable and that it only exists to accumulate users until they decide it’s time to get an RoI.

Google has invested a shocking amount of money into the platform, both to make it attractive to (professional) content creators, but also on a technical front - the amount of data they store, process and deliver is unimaginable.

I’d love it to be different, but I totally understand why this is happening, and see it rather as a turn towards an honest business; and if alternatives ever have a chance, it’s during times like these. Before, YouTube couldn’t be defeated because of virtually unlimitedly deep pockets of Alphabet.

I don’t think we’ll see commercial rivals to this as the investment is very high, but maybe a surge of Peertube or similar comparable to what Mastodon and Lemmy are to their respective services.