Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

sourcehut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#111

Post by exo762 »

tossl568 wrote: post #78
arghwhat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That a project using proof of work is bad does not meant that a project using proof of stake is good. The ban is cryptocurrencies, and that PoW cooks the planet for no benefit is only one of the listed reasons behind it.

Proof of work isn't "cooking the planet". Get a grip. And Bitcoin is a fantastic benefit for humanity resulting from proof of work.

Nah, Bitcoin was a thing. But it is an intellectually dead. And without the network the asset itself is barely a thing.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#112

Post by ddevault »

dist1ll wrote: post #102
helen___keller wrote: post #86

A platform like sourcehut is designed to be self hosted and to allow you to migrate off platform, so I feel significantly better about this than if say GitHub banned all crypto projects. Corporate megaliths have left everyone wary of platforms banning an entire topic or idea. Between shitty automation, unreachable support, and large blast radii, corporate megaliths are generally untrustworthy with moderation. The fac…

> A platform like sourcehut is designed to be self hosted and to allow you to migrate off platform Sounds nice in theory, until SourceHut changes the licensing terms to forbid self-hosting of certain projects. At this point, I'd rather trust GitHub. At least they don't have a personal vendetta against crypto.

We are not in a position to change the license terms of SourceHut:

https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-09-ip-assignment-or-lack-...

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#113

Post by tossl568 »

arghwhat wrote: post #95
tossl568 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of work isn't "cooking the planet". Get a grip. And Bitcoin is a fantastic benefit for humanity resulting from proof of work.

It's wasting huge amounts of precious resources, often from buying out old, unclean and otherwise decommissioned powerplants to make it extra bad. All with no immediate benefit. Even if Bitcoin was Proof of Stake, it's still a pretty "eh" technology. The best thing that happened to Bitcoin was when it got banned in China so that the mining capacity was vastly reduced, taking part of the environmental footprint with i…

No it isn't. If that energy is cheap enough to be used for securing Bitcoin then it can't have been used for something "useful" (in your opinion). Energy isn't fungible and transport costs exist. The immediate benefit is securing and making possible an open, permissionless digital financial system anybody can use. That is an absolutely stunning technological innovation. Proof of stake is the perpetual motion machine scam here.

The massive amount of stranded hydro that Bitcoin was soaking up in China, when mining was banned was that energy magically teleported to NYC to power people's TVs and dry their clothes? No, it's now sitting there unused with no buyers of last resort. In fact, that being sitting unused is now subsidising the fossil fuel mining by lowering the relative mining difficulty.

Mining is responsible for a rounding error in emissions, if it disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't even make a detectable dent.

Fossil fuels are bad. Fossil fuels being used for mining is bad. That doesn't make Bitcoin bad.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#114

Post by tossl568 »

arghwhat wrote: post #105
tossl568 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you have a problem with fossil fuels.

Yes, and thereby those that cause them to keep running (e.g., Bitcoin miners). If we had abundant clean energy everywhere with no unclean power plants, then knock yourself dead. But right now, any power consumed has an unclean component. Even if you use power in a country that is 100% renewable, it takes away power from a grid that is then replaced by non-renewable energy. And that these miners buy old crap power pla…

Nope. Energy isn't fungible.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#115

Post by bombcar »

razetime wrote: post #30
nibbleshifter wrote: post #26

That's unfortunately a terrible position to take, and a shitty precedent for the platform, but whatever, it's their prerogative. I liked sourcehut, but now I'll have to recommend against using it.

It's a pretty ordinary position to take right now, I believe.

The people to have respect for were those who prohibited cryptocurrency during the boomtimes, not those who pile on against it during the busts.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#116

Post by ddevault »

junofan wrote: post #96
vladharbuz wrote: post #73

There are people here who seem to take the view that businesses hosting the content of others ought to absolutely protect their "freedom of speech", no matter the content. I disagree. Some things are harmful to the lives of those around us, and just as the private individual can cast a social/cultural vote against this harmful thing by refusing to engage with it and support it, a business can cast a vote in the same…

It’s a political statement. I don’t think declaring “inaction is political” makes it so. Sounds like sloganeering.

Inaction is a political position in support of the status quo. It is the equivalent of saying "I am fine with this".

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#117

Post by noxer »

throwaway71271 wrote: post #2

Any technology that we built is used for both good and evil. For example, assembly was used to get people on the moon, but also to navigate missiles to kill millions of people. Perl was used to sequence the genome, but also it was the main language that script kiddies used in the 2000s to deface millions of websites. Almost any library written is dual use, from openssl to left-pad. The web itself is used to enable wo…

>Why do you draw the line there?

A more interesting question would be "Where does the line move to in the future?". Its unpredictable because its clearly a decision made based on personal views of a single person or a small group.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#118

Post by safety1st »

arghwhat wrote: post #95
tossl568 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of work isn't "cooking the planet". Get a grip. And Bitcoin is a fantastic benefit for humanity resulting from proof of work.

It's wasting huge amounts of precious resources, often from buying out old, unclean and otherwise decommissioned powerplants to make it extra bad. All with no immediate benefit. Even if Bitcoin was Proof of Stake, it's still a pretty "eh" technology. The best thing that happened to Bitcoin was when it got banned in China so that the mining capacity was vastly reduced, taking part of the environmental footprint with i…

This may be an axe you want to grind, but it doesn't seem pertinent to the actual statement from Sourcehut. They don't say they're terminating crypto projects because of the environmental aspect. They're terminating them because they're often fraudulent. According to this statement you could be bad for the environment, but not be a platform for fraud, and appeal to Sourcehut and be reinstated.

I personally am a fan of Drew's work and pretty skeptical of crypto, but this announcement makes me feel that Sourcehut is too small and attached to the preferences of one man for me to host anything significant there.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#119

Post by tossl568 »

exo762 wrote: post #111
tossl568 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of work isn't "cooking the planet". Get a grip. And Bitcoin is a fantastic benefit for humanity resulting from proof of work.

Nah, Bitcoin was a thing. But it is an intellectually dead. And without the network the asset itself is barely a thing.

The best engineering talent works on Bitcoin. Altcoins were intellectually DOA.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#120

Post by syzygyhack »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #74
Herbstluft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I was mostly trying to keep the comparison limited to the topic of cryptocurrencies, and the behavioural patterns observed in tech companies when it comes to them.

My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions

That's not the only difference, it's not even the most significant difference. The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Just like you don't own anything digital you buy on Amazon. If they want to revoke your ability to access content you paid for, they can and do.

In principle (not always in practice), crypto protects you from that.

Post reply on HN