Yes, even if the group is racist bigots, warlords, or plain malicious idiots, those are still covered under “any group”. And I would argue that that is a good thing. Not that these groups exist, but that there are no exceptions one might use to create trouble for users.
Seeing how the nouveau-right loves playing their victim card, that will just be gasoline for their hate-engine.
Since a definition is descriptive, not prescriptive, I think it’s paramount.
I suppose it depends on how exactly you define a blockchain. If you add distributed consensus algorithms and a requirement for BFT resistance, then it clearly isnt. Its the usual issue with definition…
I would beg to differ. It seems to be pretty useful for Software development. After all git repos are Blockchains. That being said: use a solution that fits your problem, don’t try to adapt a problen to your solution. Thats something a lot of the crypto- or AI-bros are apparently misunderstanding
If you see crypto as an investment, you shouldn’t use crypto, imho.
Not sure reality agrees here. Unless the project is huge, it will most likely not see any money. With copy-left code they are at least required to share their improvements and contribute that way. (I am aware of the no-gpl policies of many companies)
What’s probably a better Model are Nextcloud’s “SupportaaS”, Sourcehut’s consultancy, or mailcow’s SaaS. (I also see SaaS critically, but if it’s Libre I’m okay with it)
Only acoustic guitar covers of Wonderwall
Just because it bugs me to no end: thats the original purpose of a VPN, not some privacy snakeoil. That being said most host-discovery doesn’t work reliably, or is not implemented by most programs.