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

191–200 of 279 posts

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

#191

Post by divbzero »

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…

Worth noting too that SourceHut is offering an escape hatch for exceptions so it’s not quite a blanket ban:

> 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.

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

#192

Post by srhtftw »

envolt wrote: post #130

Never read a better summary before - > These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as r…

99% of crypto/blockchain projects give the rest a bad name, so I especially like this part:

> 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.

looking forward to seeing what (if any) crypto projects there manage to meet this standard.

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

#193

Post by p4bl0 »

_wolfie_ wrote: post #77

Hm, I do not see any definition of "blockchain technologies" in the new ToS. Will that be added? My understanding of "blockchain" is that for example git could be described as a application of blockchain technology. First question: Will there be further clarification regarding what is the precise definition? Second question: If there will be some HW accelerator thingie or something for blockchain technologies or cryp…

> for example git could be described as a application of blockchain technology

Git isn't a blockchain as it lacks a consensus mechanism. It can however be used as an append only immutable distributed ledger. If that's all you need, you don't need a blockchain.

That's precisely why consortium and private blockchains do not make any sense. Either they have a consensus mechanism that's useless and wasteful, or they're just not blockchains.

We can't call everything a blockchain otherwise it's not possible to talk about the technology in a meaningful manner. Blockchains were invented in 2008 in the Bitcoin paper. Merkle trees dates back from the 80s. It makes no sense to call a Merkle tree that happen to have the constraint of having a single child per node a "blockchain" except to ride the hype train.

Merkle trees have a lot of legitimate use cases. Blockchains only and single use case that make sense is making so-called "cryptocurrencies", which in turn has a single use case which is speculation, which is not something either useful to society or desirable for most people.

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

#194

Post by syzygyhack »

Herbstluft wrote: post #148
syzygyhack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Just like you don't own anything digital 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 tha…

It's not a magic wand. It facilitates new decentralized systems, it doesn't somehow fix the old ones.

You're assuming a world where digital content is administrated and supported by a centralized organization. If they stop respecting the license, it becomes worthless, no one can argue otherwise and no one is trying to.

A world where digital content is administrated by anyone (including by the user themselves) and interops with other services (games, social apps, or otherwise) does not see the assets suffer or lose value when one such service shuts its doors. They can just be taken elsewhere. One game goes down, a fork goes up, etc.

Blockchain does absolutely nothing to fix what's broken with today's systems, it provides the infrastructure for the alternative.

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

#195

Post by AlexAltea »

ddevault wrote: post #122
AlexAltea wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I do not care about your moral compass. I want the predictability that as long as I am not breaking the law, my data can be safely hosted. Am I supposed to now pay attention to law and the countless individual moral compasses of people/vendors I interact with? Moral compasses are tricky, some people let them run amok, and end up infecting computers with revenge-ransomware just for having their s…

All companies operate according to the moral compass (or lack thereof) of their founders. Some of them simply choose not to state their morals. I don't think that the slippery slope argument which is being made here and throughout the thread holds much water. We've made no indications that we're planning to address any other use-cases in this manner and we've made the reasoning behind our decisions pretty clear; it's…

I was not implying that you'll slip into such extreme policies, it's just that people with strong moral compasses are often unable to reevaluate their positions: "this is good, so it cannot be wrong".

Which leaves me no choice but to trust all my future projects to services run by people as you put it, "without a moral compass".

If I'm into (say) 3D printing and create software for it, I simply will not risk getting de-platformed just because some dude is upset people are 3D printing guns and guns are bad. The day 3D printing is illegal/restricted, I'll stop or accommodate to regulations.

I chose "3D printing" as something innocuous, but feel free to replace it with anything divisive and controversial... People just do not realize who *exhausting* it is dealing with founders with strong moral compasses. (And yes, I get it's their/your prerogative and if I don't like it I can GTFO. Just venting off.)

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

#196

Post by nurettin »

woodruffw wrote: post #168
nurettin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A violation of what , precisely?

Well, you login, no big warning signs, you become a paying customer, years later the owner decides that you are not welcome. Why was it Ok before? Don't know. Same could happen to anyone anywhere and that is not ok. And a violation of basic human decency, I guess. Not that I think this one would connect.

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

#198

Post by orange-mentor »

nurettin wrote: post #139
woodruffw wrote: post #69

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?

Run your own git server you noob

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

#200

Post by orange-mentor »

AlexAltea wrote: post #109
ddevault wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People use SourceHut for a wide variety of reasons. One of them is confidence in our strong moral compass and our willingness to make the right choices even if it could impact our profit, as contrasted with typical VC-funded operations in the market. I've never really heard anyone talk about SourceHut offering particularly more or less "freedom" than anyone else.

With all due respect, I do not care about your moral compass. I want the predictability that as long as I am not breaking the law, my data can be safely hosted. Am I supposed to now pay attention to law and the countless individual moral compasses of people/vendors I interact with? Moral compasses are tricky, some people let them run amok, and end up infecting computers with revenge-ransomware just for having their s…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN