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

231–240 of 279 posts

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

#231

Post by garren »

tossl568 wrote: post #133
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…

A monetary unit that can't be debased running on an open, permissionless financial network anybody can use is the use-case. The big and only use case. Research suggests less than 1% of "crypto" usage is for criminal activity. Energy isn't fungible and it isn't wasted if it's securing hundreds of billions of value for hundreds of millions of people. So maybe you shouldn't send something to everyone you know if it isn'…

> Research suggests less than 1% of "crypto" usage is for criminal activity.

I’m really curious to know where this statistic is coming from. Spend a day following other sources [0] and you’d be hard-pressed not to come to the same conclusion.

[0] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

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

#232

Post by jakelazaroff »

zeroclip wrote: post #177
woodruffw wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very familiar with the poem, thanks. Take a look at the last line! > 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?" Actually, I suspect that's precisely how some people would defend it. And why wouldn't they? It's completely…

Yikes, I hope that people on HN would not defend such a decision this way.

Why not? Should Drew be forced to provide ongoing labor for anyone who asks?

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

#233

Post by kamikazechaser »

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…

Terrorists cause far more physical harm than all of crypto will ever do. Do we ban Signal and Telegram repos so that we can "protect the people"?

Drew has the absolute right to ban crypto from his platform, but it is a piss take to try and justify it as being a societal harm.

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

#234

Post by bayindirh »

Bilal_io wrote: post #151
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…

> > 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…

Technological solutions to social problems are the root of all evil.

The solution doesn’t lie in the cryptocurrencies or similar systems.

This only results in more cat and mouse games, nothing else.

Ah, we also waste a lot of energy, I bet this is not important in the midst of climate change and energy crisis we’re having.

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

#235

Post by kamikazechaser »

ddevault wrote: post #8
fazfq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to see him go? From what I read you are kicking him out.

Well, their comment doesn't necessarily indicate if any of their projects would be affected, but rather that this change generally undermines their trust in SourceHut. I'm sorry to hear that this is the case.

> this change generally undermines their trust in SourceHut

It does. What are you going for next? Gambling software? Piracy software? Redsec tools?

Understandable to ban crypto specific software that enable scamming (and general scamming software). But to generalize an entire ecosystem?

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

#236

Post by kamikazechaser »

anxiously wrote: post #101

I was recently considering moving to Sourcehut or Github after self hosting using gitrc for over a year. I have been going back and forth over self hosting versus leveraging an existing service, but this news and fumblings over Gitea last week have pretty much put me right back into self hosting..

What happened over at Gitea? New drama? I'm ootl

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

#237

Post by gnull »

One of the reasons I moved from GitHub to SourceHut is the user-hostile political activism GitHub was throwing in my face. Like including the command to quietly rename any branch you're on to "main" in the instructions for uploading an existing repo.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this change. One can see it as activism, but at the same time it's still done with respect to users and I tend to trust the maintainers here to be reasonable.

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

#238

Post by gnull »

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…

Can anyone elaborate on this? Cryptography course at my university covers blockchains and we were never made aware of this. And academic community in general seems to be unaware, not a single blockchain talk I attended drew attention to this.

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

#239

Post by erik_seaberg »

minraws wrote: post #222
tossl568 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monetary unit that can't be debased running on an open, permissionless financial network anybody can use is the use-case. The big and only use case. Research suggests less than 1% of "crypto" usage is for criminal activity. Energy isn't fungible and it isn't wasted if it's securing hundreds of billions of value for hundreds of millions of people. So maybe you shouldn't send something to everyone you know if it isn'…

WTH my man, not just Tornedo(Or whatever) and such are criminal, but any fraud or scam in crypto should also be considered criminal. And I know atleast 5 banks with over 1 Billion in cap, went down. Not sure how that's not over 1 percent my man. But sure hell there are issues with Crypto as it stands. Also I can for certain say more than 1 percent of fiat is used in illegal stuff. Not sure how crypto is doing so much…

It’s not permissionless for payees, and seems completely dependent on certain German/French/Swiss banks supporting a protocol unfamiliar to me.

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

#240

Post by zeroclip »

xigoi wrote: post #230
zeroclip wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

um, no? How is it one? Validators are paid mostly from protocol reward by placing their capital at risk and performing the necessary work to validate the network.

So the richest get even richer, at the expense of everyone else. How is that not a pyramid scheme?

“Richest get richer” could describe any form of capital investment in a risk-on asset that appreciates over time: buying gold, stocks, real estate, art, VC. If you have capital to place at risk in an investment that gives you a return*, you are “rich and getting richer.”

Unlike stocks and other investments, you don’t need a large amount of capital to receive a PoS reward, and there are less significant economy of scale. All validators receive an equal % return no matter how much Eth they deposit. Those without 32ETH capital can use pools and decentralized staking platforms to receive the same % return minus a small fee to the service who has the capital at risk and is doing the work to validate.

Opposite to a pyramid scheme: if more people join Eth deposit pool, everybody including early investors earns collectively less % reward on their stake, and the equation for this is explicit and known! And the staking deposit of each new entrant does not funnel back up to early entrants.

* Note: a lot of these investors are down since last year, not just Eth but stocks and other investments have crashed.

Post reply on HN