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

251–260 of 279 posts

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

#251

Post by _wolfie_ »

ddevault wrote: post #85
_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…

> Will there be further clarification regarding what is the precise definition? It's intentionally subjective. A tounge-in-cheek analysis could conclude that git is a blockchain, but no one suggests this seriously. The terms establish a worldview and framework around the problems cryptocurrency and blockchain projects impose on society, and it's within this framework that projects will be evaluated -- not simply on t…

While I'm still not happy about this change (well, I do not like more entries on the list now that I've actually read it), I'm happy to hear there will be a actual human in the loop you can talk to before having the repository deleted. At least that is my tl;dr understanding of the second part of your answer.

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

#252

Post by _wolfie_ »

p4bl0 wrote: post #193
_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 j…

> Git isn't a blockchain as it lacks a consensus mechanism.

Isn't for example for Linux technically Linus acting as the "consensus mechanism"? Or does it have to be automated?

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

#253

Post by openfuture »

exo762 wrote: post #204
openfuture wrote: post #62

Am I affected? sr.ht/~ilmu/tala.saman ... I would appreciate knowing so I have time to move and since you (drew) are in this thread this is the expedient way to find out...

Why you consider even negotiating such thing? Don't you find it degrading?

Degrading? Hah! man.. I've prioritized this problem over everything else in my life to the point where it has almost killed me and it has robbed me of everything.. when you are living on the street with 0 money in your pocket and you need to take a shit and the bathroom costs a coin to enter then what do you do? Cause I guess the difference between us and dogs is that you can poo straight into the plastic bag, no need for the intermediate step... Now if I would accept a job creating problems for regular people I'd have north of 100k for sitting in my chair and occasionally pressing a few buttons on my keyboard. But my refusal is absolute, the problem I am working on is important and if no one is willing to pay me for it then that is not my problem (yes it is but it is even more everyones elses problem than it is mine).

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

#255

Post by Cameri »

zeroclip wrote: post #216
xigoi wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tell me again, how much money do you need in order to stake?

0.01 ETH or less, through decentralized staking pools. But your main argument is wrong: validators do not control the network. Users running node software do. Running a node is free. If a single validator began to exert unwanted control, the honest majority of non-rich users could slash or evict them.

What prevents the rich validators from slashing non-rich users so they don't lose their majority?

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

#256

Post by vladharbuz »

naasking wrote: post #172
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…

> 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. I also disagree, so long as competitors that disagree with such decisions are also permitted , and so long as the entity in question is not monopolistic or is acting as some kind of widely used utilities for speech . On some issues di…

I agree with you! There's an interesting discussion to be had there in the general case. SourceHut being easily self-hostable means this isn't an issue in this case.

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

#257

Post by vladharbuz »

kamikazechaser wrote: post #233
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.

I'd like to hear more about your view, but I don't quite see how what you said applies. My point is that, _if_ you considered cryptocurrencies to be nothing other than a scam, it makes sense to ban them on account of the harm they cause to others. Your examples of Signal and Telegram are not the same thing at all, as they are general communication platforms also used for many things other than terrorism. If there was such a chat app specifically made for and exclusively used for terrorism, then yes, I think banning it is the way to go on the grounds I mentioned above. Can you elaborate more on the details you think we disagree on?

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

#258

Post by bayindirh »

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?

The announcement is more nuanced and detailed:

> 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.

First of all, they keep the gate open for appealing the decision, and they are not applying a blanket, shoot first, ask questions later ban on the matter.

On the other hand, I'm supporting the decision made by Drew and the company, as a paying SourceHut member.

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

#259

Post by arghwhat »

tossl568 wrote: post #215
arghwhat wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, when we have a 100% renewable grid where Bitcoin neither takes away renewable quota, add dirty energy, cause grid to have to expand, or causes issues when TWh of heat is vented, and it is then adopted for legitimate reasons and not primarly for speculation and scamming, then Bitcoin goes from extremely harmful to mildly interesting. Yes there are cases where they buy good power plants, but they also power from…

"ANY consumption is bad" You really aren't getting this are you. Energy in place A can't be magically transported to place B where it's needed for what you bless as acceptable usage. Bicoin miners aren't using grid energy. They're using energy that CAN'T be connected to a grid. Bitcoin is a fantastic use of energy regardless, just because YOU don't need to use it or think so doesn't make that the case.

Yeah you aren't getting it.

1. People mine Bitcoin on the grid.

2. Some miners - mostly China, which is no longer mining - buy decommissioned power plants and mine "off the grid".

... But, surprise surprise, these decommissioned power plants were previously used. People generally do not invest in building power plants that cannot connect to the grid, as the power plant needs to make money. While it never became a thing in the US, energy trade is a big thing in the rest of the world - see e.g. the European Energy Exchange.

The people that tripped over a hydroplant that was built only to power e.g. a remote factory that has shut down and nothing else, account for a very, very, VERY small amount of miners.

Considering that Bitcoin mining consumes TWh in the scale of a small country, those few fairy tale cases just don't matter. It's a cute way to try to justify the environmental disaster Bitcoin mining is, just too bad it doesn't hold.

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

#260

Post by _aavaa_ »

threatofrain wrote: post #227
_aavaa_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems conspicuous of valve given tf2 hats and cs:go skins.

What's wrong with in-game cosmetics as a funding model? They don't purport to be a stand-in for currency or anything useful at all, and thus are purely for cosmetics. What's worse is buying something that does matter to the game AKA pay-to-win; compare to Diablo where you pay to beat other players. This is just a "pay what you want" model in disguise, and not surprisingly some people pay nothing and will face no comp…

A) Being better than pay-to-win is a very low bar

B) This is not "pay what you want" it's "pay what you want for gambling". You can buy those items, but not from the developer directly. From the developer you can buy the privilege of gambling for what you want. You can only buy them directly if they allow a secondary market.

C) My initial point had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad. It was that Valve already had proto-NFTs in several of their games.

Post reply on HN