Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. They spoke Russian. They married Russians. It happened. But it's a history now. No one can force-continue the marriage.
Yes there are ethnic ties between them. That doesn't mean they are identical, or that one should rule the other. Should Scotland rule Ireland (or vice versa) because they are both Gaelic peoples that were part of the British Empire?
Simply history. Ukraine was never a 'country' until briefly in the 20's then the 90's.
Ukrainians have been Rus, or Russians, or Ruthenians, etc... for most of their history. They were once a single people. That's just a fact.
The differences in identity are the fact that western Ukraine has at times belonged to Austria-Hungary or Poland. Or the fact the Cossacks carved out small states amidst foreign rule. And likewise Novgorod and Moscow had small states during Muslim domination which also contributed to a unique Russian identity.
It's not as simple as 'Ukraine was part of USSR for a generation.
My ancestors were Ukrainian, spoke Ukrainian, identified as Ukrainian but were from Austria-Hungary and officially were called 'Ruthenians'.
The same thing that separates Russia and Ukraine is what separates the Czech Republic and Slovakia. One people (ish), just different historical circumstances at times creating different identities and eventually states.
Ukraine should be its own country today. But not because of made up history, simply because today they want to.
Ruthenia was called Ruthenia because it was in the West, and part of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, so went by the Latin name for Rus. Russia is derived from the Greek. Even centuries ago they were distinct.
And before then, before there were nation-states as we think of them now, the principality of Kyiv was distinct from the principality of Mosovy. Kyiv was not subordinated to Moscow until Peter, Elizabeth, and Catherine, in the 1600s and 1700s -- more than a millennium after Kyiv's founding.
Well, before that there was another war (the Red Army vs. the Ukrainian nationalists around 1920); and Stalin killing millions of Ukrainians in the man-made famine in the early 1930; followed by the mass repressions in the late 1930s, with hundreds of thousands executed. It's never been a happy marriage, not really.
How easy it is to operate a computer is orthogonal to Free Software vs whatever vs whatever else. Free Software had enough time and resources to make a computer turn on instantly, for example, but they chose today's common path of incompetence. For Security, Of Course, You Want To Be Secure, Right? Here, Eat A Cactus, It's Very Secure.
I can do the same by buying the art from his website transfering the funds to his bank account, using a fraction of the energy, requiring no additional software and no network of nodes to keep some blorkchain alive.
I specifically wrote verifiably. In your bank case, no one will be able to verify, independently of the supporter or the artist, that the transaction happened.
> And why would anyone need to be able to verify that?
Because, in the bank example, after a bank transaction happens, the artist may not like a particular supporter because, for example, the supporter may be a white cis male who doesn't like the left bullies, so the artist may lie that the transaction happened at all, saying that he/she didn't receive any money from the supporter. In this case, and other such cases, there must be an independent log of events that actually happened, despite what people may say.
The supporter could ask bank to mail him a receipt from the transfer. And then show this transfer or have it notarized in most extreme case. Thus proofing he made it. We already have solutions for this.
And then there are court system to be involved if the artist were to commit fraud in this case and for example not provide services. Maybe even discrimination case.
> The supporter could ask bank to mail him a receipt from the transfer. And then show this transfer or have it notarized in most extreme case. Thus proofing he made it. We already have solutions for this.
No one will believe the supporter. The receipt may be a fake text he/she made.
The whole premise of blockchain is that no transaction can be altered. What happened -- happened, unlike someone's text or screenshots on someone's servers on the Internet.
Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and the artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
And of course the entire transaction is a simple buyers contract, thus making it legally binding and enforceable.
So if the artist tries to go back on the agreement, he can be sued. If he claims he never received funds, the court orders the banks to hand over the records.
> Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
> So if the artists try to go back on the agreement, he can be sued.
Sued about what? The supporters want the artist to keep the money, there are no legal conflicts here other than that the artist may lie that he/she is supported by particular people. Unlike in bank case, you and me and anyone else may see for ourselves who is supported by whom.
> But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
If they receive a court order, they are required to hand over records.
> Sued about what?
If I buy something from an artist, I am entering a legally binding contract with him. Such contracts can be enforced in court.
Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
> Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.
Support for the artist exists when someone first buys the NFT from the one who minted it. But nothing prevents investors from trading NFTs among each other. How many NFT trades are "artist-to-buyer", how many nft trades are "investor-to-investor"?
And if I buy a piece of art the classic way (buyers contract), I can put it in a gallery, or whatever, and "show everyone that I support the artist" that way.
And even without buying something, no Blockchain is required to support artists: people have managed to do so since long before electricity was discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts
