141–150 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working on what? Smart-contracts? Privacy? The only thing Bitcoin has going is LN, but even than, it will not succeed - simply because a better alternatives exist.
Bitcoin is money, digital scarcity only needed to be invented once. Shitcoins are scams. LN is growing fast on a solid hard money layer 1 foundation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None. All support requests are handled by a real person, who will hear you out and can be reasoned with.
Is this real person also named Drew?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legitimate use-cases are not banned, per the article: > We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support.
Seems extremely arbitrary. Would ENS get a pass? What about Ethereum itself?
A lot of the comments so far have been negative, so I’ll add a positive one: I think this was the right move, and I’m content (as an actual paying member) with it. Kudos particularly for the well-laid-out position statement. Drew and I have extensive differences in opinion when it comes to software, but his sincerity and willingness to put his money where his mouth is are apparent in cases like this.
You can cheer for your ideology, but what if your business was the one being purged because the owners profess to be the moral guardians of humanity?
The “first they came for X” argumentative tack is built around the common understanding that you should stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves, because nobody will be left to stand up for you should you need it. Are you claiming that the cryptocurrency industry can’t stand up for itself? I thought that was the whole point of this autonomous, uncensorable, etc. stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inaction is a political position in support of the status quo. It is the equivalent of saying "I am fine with this".
I disagree with this. Inaction is merely an acknowledgement that we can't be informed, effective activists on everything. I'm pretty much disengaged from political activism these days, because I don't want to be manipulated into joining the human equivalent of a botnet. Instead I focus on the one area (accessibility for disabled people) where I'm actually knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion, and where I…
Thank you for your work on accessibility! :)
Lot of throwaway accounts at the top of this thread, that's quite funny fun, and telling about this site Cryptocurrencies are ponzi schemes, they are scams, they should be illegal There are better ways to fight the current system than with other scams
This is disappointing. I'd previously been a big fan of the sourcehut model. I can understand not wanting to be associated with the billions of tinycoin ICO scams or NFTs that are just URL links or whatever else. But to reject things like Bitcoin or Ethereum seems to me to be a denial of reality. Just because it's not useful for you, doesn't make it not useful. For clarity, I will be affected by this change and I don…
Bitcoin with proof of waste is not just about flavour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
True. But blockchain tech changes absolutely nothing about that in the realm of games and media, having a flag in a decentralized database does not protect me from a (game) server owner banning me, a drm system choosing to ignore said flag, or shutting down the whole game and refusing distribution. In these situation only piracy would help, and we don't need snakeoil for that.
In the end there will be a centralized entity with the power to deny my access.
Neither do cryptocurrencies change anything about this in the realms of finance as long as their complete existence builds on top of banks and exchanges, which it very much does.
Cryptocurrencies are not an alternative, they are an addon at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with this. Inaction is merely an acknowledgement that we can't be informed, effective activists on everything. I'm pretty much disengaged from political activism these days, because I don't want to be manipulated into joining the human equivalent of a botnet. Instead I focus on the one area (accessibility for disabled people) where I'm actually knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion, and where I…
It seems to me like the disagreement isn't as big as you make it out to be. This is an instance where the maintainer of a business has strong views that they consider well-informed on the social impact of an issue, and there is no pragmatic barrier to taking action according to their values, so they are doing this. Inaction in this case might be reprimandable, but I am not saying that I reprimand them or you for negl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Put yourself in the maintainers' shoes — would you be happy to idly stand by when you know your service is being used to actively harm others' lives? [^1] Perhaps you would, and if so, I would be interested in hearing your view. Yeah, just like Tor, which is also heavily associated and almost exclusively used for illicit and illegal activities; especially by fraudsters, criminals, scammers, tax / sanctions evasion…
The difference is that projects like Tor were certainly not created with any devious purpose in mind. Arguments and use cases for anonymity are very easy to come up with. Blockchain related projects cause damage on two fronts: - They are commonly created with the explicit goal to scam most people while making very few people rich. - The tech around blockchains ( almost ) qualifies as snakeoil. The use cases are nonex…
Examples? I'm struggling to come up with examples outside of something like "ponzicoin". The typical token/ICO project has some plausible business model (ie. you're investing in a token that allows you to use this smart contract, which presumably will have demand if the smart contract becomes popular) which makes it hard to call it an "explicit" scam, even if it does turn out to be effectively a ponzi.