To me it's hidden at the end of the list, but sometimes it's unreachable unless I resize my browser and many times I don't have that section at all on my Android TV. Not very useful how it's implemented.
Also, let us tell YT we're not interested in a category. I've watched a blacksmith video once, I had the Metallurgy category recommended to me for 6 months.
Google, the world famous AI company, presents the proof that recommendation engines are incredibly dumb and annoying except in very tightly controlled environments. There is nothing intelligent about it.
> Are there charges or fee associated with coin mining?
> Norton Crypto is included as part of Norton 360 subscriptions. However, there are coin mining fees as well as transaction costs to transfer Ethereum.
> The coin mining fee is currently 15% of the crypto allocated to the miner.
> Whether that claim can be meaningfully sold on to someone else is outside the scope of this discussion.
The issue of sidestepping future interactions is that such a schema has no meaning. If I go a step further and stipulate that the transaction doesn't need to be proven to third parties then having any schema bar making the transaction itself is completely meaningless!
It is only when you attempt to prove or sell the claim in future, to third parties does such a schema and blockchains have some utility.
You don't really need Twitter, you need a platform and require the people that use the platform to bring in their ledgers so they are auditable by the public. I can view someone's work and examine if they're trustworthy or not. Similar to how people are signing their signatures, they could be just bringing together their ledger, which could be a bloom filter so it's just a single line of hash that I can verify I still own the thing they selled, you only need a system that can compare these and see if anything has been double spent. The point is, you don't need a running bitcoin-style blockchain for this. You can achieve the same validity with different means.
Using a bloom filter as a distributed hash means you're edging quite close to a blockchain, the only question your schema now has is consensus - how is work examined for trustworthiness? What prevents network spam?
I haven't puzzled it though but intuitively it feels like you wouldn't be able to achieve the "same validity" (aka you'd have a weaker set of guarentees) without the liveness of a blockchain like system. Whether you agree with what threshold of validity is acceptable is a different matter.
This is true, except there would at least be a record on some blockchain where the artwork was first proven to exist via a hash. This is at least stronger proof against the artist and for the buyer.
As it stands this isn't very valuable yet but in my mind an important milestone.
A signature is simply that, a signature. It doesn't guarantee uniqueness and doesn't prevent you copying it any number of times.
An identity + timestamping mechanism would guarantee uniqueness of ownership, and a blockchain performs this in a relatively decentralised and trustless manner.
The blockchain sounds very centralised if it's the only place I can participate to verify my ownership. Decentralised would be if there was no third party(in this case the blockchain) necessary for verifying ownership. Which it actually isn't, because all that is needed is the signature of the author and maybe a timestamp or some other metadata signed along.
Of course! The blockchain is only decentralised compared to a centralised service such as Sotheby's and doesn't remove the third party entirely. The thing is unless you restrict the requirements of the artwork and the transaction not involving a third party actually restricts future guarentees that can be made to third parties.
If the restrictions of never involving third parties (in proofs of ownership or otherwise) is acceptable, then there's no need for any schema bar making the transaction itself.
The issue with removing the third party entirely (as the auther suggests) is the verifiability of the timestamp to any interested third parties. The simplest scenario is proof of existence of the artwork at time T. Without a timestamping mechanism there's nothing stopping the creator lying about when it was created, or when this transaction took place.
What was the result? I've seen comments on /r/datahorder and the like claiming some honoured the RMA without the enclosure whilst others had success returning it to the enclosure.
I don't know how they sort the categories but I've only found the "New to you" at the start or end of the list.