A lot of the other responses here are too complicated and specific. Here's my attempt to put it into easier-to-digest terms:
In a traditional web stack you have a backend and a frontend. The frontend is the stuff the browser runs, and, simplifying a bit, the backend is everything else.
Ethereum smart contracts basically let you replace your backend logic and database with code that runs on the Ethereum blockchain network. Depending on your application can decide to run only a few parts of your backend on Ethereum, or the entire backend.
It's very slow when compared to traditional backends like nodejs, etc, but it has the benefits of censorship resistance and excellent availability. Better still, you don't need to run or maintain servers to support it if you don't want to (although there are benefits to doing so).
In this case, they're using Ethereum's replacement for DNS, ENS.
Amazon is becoming more and more like AliExpress with respect to product accuracy and quality. As an example, I recently bought tomato seeds for my garden. I searched for rainbow tomatoes, and the bulk of the results were clearly photoshopped photos made to look like they'd grow tomatoes with colors that'd get lost in a ball pit.
It's easy to evaluate on things like that, but on stuff where corners can be cut I definitely worry.
A while back I bought habanero seeds on Amazon. They sprouted and did well, but they put out regular sweet peppers. I've bought catnip seeds that were fine. Anymore, I only buy seeds from the store though.
> to actually make a transaction on the blockchain
On which blockchain, exactly? On the Ethereum Mainnet you can transact for a fraction of a cent USD and it'll typically be verified (mined into a block) within a minute (often faster).
On the Bitcoin chain you choose your own transaction fee, but if you're not keeping up with market rates your transaction might take quite a long time to be verified (again, mined into a block).
I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. I'm not suggesting for a second that stripping anonymity is a solution to any of these problems, but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.
> but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.
The problem with this is the 'sort of behavior' you are referring to is posting any statements that disagree with the worldview of the majority of the people in your circles.
Without anonymity you will also lack civil discourse when all of the sane people on the minority side know not to speak up because they fear retribution.
Anyone who publicly considered voting for Trump was accused of being a sexist, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobe. So instead of any sane discourse, there was just a surprise upset when Trump won because everyone was convinced the strategy of accusing all Trump supporters of 'isms' until they shut up was working.
FWIW, most of what you're saying here is my rationale for the first half of the sentence you quoted. Specifically, there are times when it makes sense to speak up, and being able to do so anonymously definitely quashes fear-driven self censorship.
While generally I'd agree that self censorship is a bad thing, I'd also agree that an ability to control one's impulsiveness is just the opposite. Impulse control is what I was referring to above as my general reasoning for why I default to using my real identity online, not self censorship.
> I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online.
We might lose some civility but we also gain a lot of honesty which is absent everywhere else now due to PC culture. So the question is whether we prefer sometimes uncivilized but honest discussion or a civil veneer of what people really think.
I agree that those who participate in a process like this shouldn't circumvent its rules -- that just makes the whole problem much more difficult to manage. However, I think you could just as easily argue that the process itself is scummy for requiring the job posting when a well-qualified candidate has already been identified.
Why is a candidate's country of citizenship the test for whether a role must be posted publicly before it can be filled? Wouldn't it be best for both the economy and the company if this rule were followed (without circumvention) for 100% of job openings? If your answer to that is "no," then why require it in any circumstance?
I strongly agree that this is true in a lot of cases, and the ahead-of-time rationalization of limiting liability helps to perpetuate the lack of necessity of a clear, defensible reason for rejection.
I say this as a hiring manager, by the way, knowing full well that nothing involving the hiring process is as clean and straightforward as anyone involved wants it to be.
