SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by ddevault » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

zeroclip wrote: post #153

ddevault wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both projects would not be permitted under this policy.

Lol, hilarious. I guess Endaoment and any EVM-based project would also not be permitted, then. Now I wonder what would pass this nebulous Drew-review.

I mean, those are clearly cryptocurrency-related projects which fall well within the scope of this policy. The exceptions are not to let the "good" cryptocurrency projects in -- there are no such projects -- but to make sure that projects which are close to this domain get a fair shake, like something which incidentally uses a blockchain-like data structure, GNU Taler, etc.

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

#162

Post by klyrs » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:48 PM UTC

exo762 wrote: post #141

tossl568 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You haven't addressed anything I've said. What they are working on? Definitely not privacy nor smart-contracts.

they've been sea lioning this thread, the goal isn't to convince, but to exhaust

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

#163

Post by tossl568 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #131

tossl568 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy isn't fungible. That financial system uses many more magnitudes of energy. This is like blaming dollars for the existence of bank robbers.

I don’t understand what energy’s fungibility has to do with anything I’ve said. Most economic uses of energy involve exchanging it for productive capacity or consumer demand. Bitcoin definitely is an economic use of energy, just not a good or desirable one. I don’t think the directly comparable elements of the financial system (i.e., storage and settlement) use anywhere near as much power as Bitcoin does. Unless you’…

Not a good or desirable one in your opinion. It is absolutely good and desirable in my opinion to have neutral money that can be used by anybody but controlled by nobody. The US dollar is secured by military force which has a staggering energy footprint. Bitcoin finally settled roughly the same amount as Fedwire last year and uses exactly as much energy as it needs to.

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

#164

Post by nurettin » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #157

nurettin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would accept that another person has chosen not to do business with me and take my money to a vendor who would choose to do business with me. Or host my own source control. Anyone is free to choose not to take my money because they disagree with the business I choose to conduct.

They purge people after btc/usd drops. It is a violation no matter how you look at it.

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

#165

Post by DavideNL » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

djha-skin wrote: post #137

As a paying customer, I am disenchanted. I agree with Drew's views on cryptocurrency on a personal level, but banning someone for using a technology before even knowing whether or not it's primarily being used to break the law is not what I had in mind. Sure, ban harassment, spam, illegal activities, and abuse of platform. But this kind of banning seems more arbitrary even than GitHub's, which is sort of what I was g…

> "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."

Sounds very reasonable to me.

After all, there is a real problem which needed solving, i imagine it also eats up a lot of wasted time/cost.

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

#166

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

tossl568 wrote: post #160

woodruffw wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And that's only a problem if those energy sources are fossil fuels Okay, but the 'if' there is true. Bitcoin is currently inducing demand for coal and gas plants, which is very bad. It's unclear when it'll stop doing that, if it'll stop, and a hypothetical future in which Bitcoin starts incentivizing the good thing instead of the bad thing doesn't change the truth value of the current bad thing. (We've also fixated…

Bitcoin isn't going away. More people are putting their trust in it as their monetary standard every day, not less. Bitcoin, the asset and network are neutral. Scams on top of it, shitcoin affinity scams, or whatever "oodles of other great reasons" don't change that. The majority of Bitcoin mining is already renewable, it already incentivises renewables this isn't a hypothetical future. If somebody proposed a law tom…

This is a polemic. I don't have a stated position on whether Bitcoin is or isn't going away, and we've completely drifted away from the factual matter at hand (that Bitcoin does currently incentivize coal burning).

If Bitcoin is neutral as you say, it cannot incentivize renewable production. It can only induce energy demand and, consequently, seek out the cheapest energy on the market. It doesn't get to sit on any laurels for that, any more than car manufacturing or aluminum refinement would. Except, of course, that those actually produce things.

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

#167

Post by zeroclip » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #144

nurettin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t believe Drew or any of the other Sourcehut admins 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 th…

That's not how the argument and poem[1] goes. If a devops team for a pro-choice campaign was being censored on SourceHut because it does not align with Drew's moral compass, nobody would defend this with "well, they can just run their own git hosting services, so what's the problem?"

A lot of people building crypto tools also are happy to use centralized services like GitHub, SourceHut, GitLab, because they might not be satisfied with the alternatives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

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

#168

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

nurettin wrote: post #164

bastawhiz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would accept that another person has chosen not to do business with me and take my money to a vendor who would choose to do business with me. Or host my own source control. Anyone is free to choose not to take my money because they disagree with the business I choose to conduct.

They purge people after btc/usd drops. It is a violation no matter how you look at it.

A violation of what, precisely?

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

#169

Post by tossl568 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #156

Bilal_io wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > and sanctions evasion. Yeah, most people in sanctioned countries are victims of their own governments. Please punish them more by not allowing them to send and receive money that their lives could depend on. Cryptocurrency helps remove at least a little bit of that pain for many families around the world. > I'm going to send this to everyone who I know is involved in crypto/blockchain. I bet you've complained abo…

Iranians trying to get cash so they can buy groceries are not the problem. North Korea using ransomware to get lots of cryptocurrency they can use to fund their nuclear weapons program is the problem.

Either the money is permissionless or it isn't. If everyone can use it that means people you don't like can too. Like the internet. If I can send packet to my friend with a message then so can a terrorist.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #115

razetime wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]