Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 720 posts

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#251

Post by whateveracct »

conartist6 wrote: post #137
jdormit wrote: post #107

Wow. I have never worked on any cryptocurrency projects and never intend to, but I will certainly be staying very far away from Codeberg because of this. There are some levels of censorship that make sense for a code forge - “you can’t do crimes on our servers”, “you can’t host malware on our servers”, etc. But inflicting a subjective moral judgement on an entire category of software sends the message that this isn’t…

They banned cypto projects two weeks ago. Today they banned vibecoded projects. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

wow so codeberg is goated?

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#252

Post by tkel »

causalmodels wrote: post #209
pretendgeneer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding "codeberg is political". Everything is political, FOSS is political, GitHub is also political. When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.

My issue with this is not that codeberg and its members want to uphold a certain set of political beliefs. Any private organization is free to do that. It's that they haven't defined the rule that's supposed to encode those beliefs. As written, the rule is a non-exhaustive example of "content that harms codeberg's reputation". Someone asked in the pr whether "cryptocurrency-related" is defined anywhere and it merged…

You're still not understanding the point. It's not about an organization being "private" or "public" (what does "private" even mean?). Everything is political. When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political, obscuring/obfuscating their actual underlying politics, and everything else is pushed outside of it. It is an attempt to create strict boundaries around the limits of discussion and action, which is itself a political act!

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#253

Post by what »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #227
simonw wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not crazy about this: > We acknowledge that many developers have started to embrace LLMs as a tool in their workflows. Some use it extensively and rarely code by hand, others delegate only specific tasks to it. We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can't give an easy answer, we'll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the d…

They have no idea what "slop" is. They don't want to have to define it with any precision. Ironically, these rules will be enforced based on vibes.

They will just put it to user vote, same way all their policy is decided.

> The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#254

Post by hparadiz »

bit-anarchist wrote: post #149
tired-turtle wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote USD, not cash. Most transactions in USD are electronic, not physical, so it’s a little unclear what point you’re trying to make.

USD includes cash. In fact, cash is the preferred payment method for criminal things, contending with Monero, so complaining about its inclusion is certainly something. Going even further, cryptcurrencies, being distrusted ledgers, still fulfill the ability to test for someone "social trust" within a transaction, anonymous or not. Also, it's not like we, as the whole society, have access to your transaction history a…

Anyone who lives in a country with high inflation and unstable monetary policy can now use crypto to store wealth. Calling crypto inherently bad is pure first world privilege.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#255

Post by whateveracct »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #222
zarzavat wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretending to run an inclusive git hosting service for FOSS and then attacking your own users because their code is the wrong type of algorithm isn't politics, it's just being an asshole.

Run your own Codeberg instance with blackjack and hookers, it's open source.

i'm sure the guy you're replying to also wants to "legalize comedy"

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#257

Post by Tepix »

trollbridge wrote: post #156
fishgoesblub wrote: post #2

Let this be a reminder to never trust any service be it one ran by a billion dollar company, to one ran by volunteers. You will be eventually screwed over. Make backup plans, and self-host whatever you can so nothing can be taken from you. For Git forges, I personally recommend Gitea[1], or Forgejo[2] (a Gitea fork by Codeberg) [1]: https://about.gitea.com/ [2]: https://forgejo.org/

I’m using self hosted GitLab; any reason I should check out something else? (I also mirror projects to public GitLab and to GitHub.)

The ability for others to send you pull requests without requiring an account on your gitlab instance

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#258

Post by hparadiz »

what wrote: post #253
matheusmoreira wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have no idea what "slop" is. They don't want to have to define it with any precision. Ironically, these rules will be enforced based on vibes.

They will just put it to user vote, same way all their policy is decided. > The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.

[flagged]

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#260

Post by axus »

mbreese wrote: post #173
conartist6 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They banned cypto projects two weeks ago. Today they banned vibecoded projects. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is…

I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems.

Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good:

"It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users.

To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects"

Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.

Post reply on HN