I dunno, I feel like we could pretty cost effectively fill his stomach if we used pennies.

Yeah, we get it, Bezos. You want us to shove more and more money down your throat.

I’m prepared to contribute a whole lot of pennies to the cause.

NixOS is great. I love just how extensively you can configure a system by simply dropping in a config file. If I have to set up a new system, I usually work it out in a VM, then just copy the config files onto the system’s fresh NixOS install and have it almost entirely set up in minutes.

Is there anything explicitly forbidding it? I can’t say I recall anything specific about it, but I admit I could be just forgetting a constitutional clause or something.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes and no. The receiver does need to somehow communicate the destination to the sender, I believe typically through an invoice of some sort. Been a long time since I kept up, so the details are getting hazy. Anyway, there are only two times that lightning network usage requires a publicly visible blockchain transaction: when you want to put coins on the lightning network and when you want to take them back off to the blockchain. You open a channel with a node basically saying “I’ll put X amount in this channel in if you’ll put in Y amount (one of them can be zero, i.e. send or receive only), and here’s a signed transaction you can publish on the blockchain to get your money back at any time.” Any time you make a transaction over the lightning network, you rewrite that cashout transaction so the balance shifts by however much you’re sending plus any fees you agree to pay, but you do it in such a way that you only really give them the signed transaction if they prove they’re gonna pass on what you want to send to the next node, and this process repeats with every node in the chain until everyone agrees to move the money.

All that to say there’s really no record of any transaction ever happening outside of however your balance changes between putting it on the network and taking it back off. There’s no record of who sent what, how many transactions it took, what path any transaction took to get there, nothing at all except initial and final balance. Now, this does mean that if the money is withdrawn, there’s evidence you’ve been paid, but not for what, by who, by how many people, over how many transactions, or a anything else but the final total amount from all transactions. If they just spent everything they received back over the lightning network, there’s effectively no real evidence that any real transactions ever occurred.

Of course, this hypothetical nonprofit is almost certainly going to be paying a company that wants US dollars. They’ll probably have to cash out in a highly traceable way, and actually buying the ICE data will require a highly traceable bank transfer or other conventional payment method. In that sense, you’re right, the nonprofit gets left exposed. But they could completely mask who sent money.

The receiver ends up hanging a bit in the wind.

Actually, the way the payments are structured, no money moves AT ALL if ANYONE in the chain tries to back out. It maintains the trustless nature of crypto. I don’t recall the specifics of how it’s done, though.

That’s a good point, they’d definitely just subpoena your bank records. If crypto is used properly, it can be nigh impossible to trace, though. Bitcoin isn’t very private at all on the blockchain, but if you send over lightning network, my understanding is that it becomes effectively impossible to track, unless your adversary controls enough lightning network nodes to track the payment as it bounces between nodes. They wouldn’t need to control the whole path, but they would need to control nodes VERY close to origin and destination, ideally the adjacent nodes, and enough of those in the middle to be reasonably sure they can accurately follow the money. The lightning network doesn’t leave a detailed ledger behind, so only way to trace a payment is to be involved in its processing, which means controlling the nodes the money passes through on its way to the recipient.

Of course, that’s way too obscure and unknown for the vast majority of people, so I don’t see a nonprofit succeeding that way these days. Maybe if crypto actually does get mainstream, but that’s still a pretty big if.

Are nonprofits required to track who they receive donations from? I could be wrong, but I don’t think they are. They have to have financial records, but I don’t think that means maintaining a donor list.

If they want to target more technologically capable users, they’ll just hard code the IP addresses so it doesn’t need DNS and make any IP changes in routine updates.

I bet a nonprofit would have a reasonable chance of raising the funds to buy the data and publicly publish it.

Can you not? I haven’t really used OpenMW, but I’ve been thinking about using it to go through Morrowind. I assume it’s not perfect, but I got the impression it was getting to be pretty good.

Don’t worry, Trump will just roll over and let it happen.

If I remember correctly, you don’t really need Prowlarr. It’s useful if you’re using multiple *arr services, but Prowlarr manages your indexers, the place *arr services look for content, and syncs them to your other *arr services so THEY can do the search. I don’t think Prowlarr itself ever looks for content automatically, only if you manually search through Prowlarr.

It saves them money in the same sense it saves every other information source money, it reduces traffic. But just like other sites can’t serve ads without traffic, Wikipedia can’t prove its worth and ask for donations without traffic. Eventually, people will start asking themselves why they need to support Wikipedia when Google’s AI tells them everything they need to know, unaware that Google’s AI can only do so because it scrapes Wikipedia without paying for it.

And in return, they drive traffic away from the sites that collect the information in the first place, causing the sources to lose revenue.

Maybe kinda, but it’s also a third party whose certificates are almost if not entirely universally trusted. Self-signed certs cause software to complain unless you also spread a root certificate to be trusted to any machine that might use one of your self-signed certs.

In a sense, you are hosting the content. You’re retaining a copy (so long as the window is open) and constantly attempting to spread it. It’s literally built on bittorrent protocols if I remember correctly, and it’s already very well established that you can be held responsible for seeding copyright infringing material, so I see no reason at all they’d give you a pass for CP instead. You may not intend to, but remember, my example was someone who looks of age but is not.

Using something like PeerTube is potentially even worse because let’s say you unknowingly open a video where someone in it looks of age but technically isn’t. You as a user help propagate that content while you have it open. You’re not just downloading illegal content at that point. You’re actively sharing it to new people.

Nobody’s throwing a tantrum. They’re just saying they can’t reasonably serve their purpose if they lose 32-bit support. A project so heavily based on other projects is subject to upstream whims, and they probably don’t have the manpower to do anything about it.

Lemmy, the software you’re using right now, was built by a person on a computer. As was the operating system your computer uses to function.