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

501–510 of 720 posts

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#501

Post by tarpitt »

hogwasher wrote: post #422
bArray wrote: post #367

I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]: > Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computation…

I'd rather companies actually care (or even just care about seeming to care) about ethics, rather than only caring what makes the line go up the fastest, yes. A company that treats ethics as optional, or that thinks "it's a business" excuses every imaginable sin, is one that will happily screw you and me over too. Also, in the long term, making climate change worse is a catastrophically bad decision for absolutely ev…

[flagged]

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#502

Post by surgical_fire »

bArray wrote: post #367

I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]: > Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computation…

Are we going to pretend that hosting open sourse software for free is an apolitical thing?

Neutrality itself is very political. You may prefer it, and that is fine; sometimes I prefer it as well.

But within the confined of the law, it should be a non-issue that a free service is not neutral.

To be frank, I think that the majority of people screeching about Codeberg here are totally fine with "right to refuse service" when it comes to businesses (as if that was not political at all).

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#503

Post by tkel »

StrontiumK9 wrote: post #418
tkel wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you're not part of the community, what do you care? Are you saying you are opposed to this on the grounds that anything could happen in the future? That doesn't really make sense. Yes, anything could happen. Yes, people change. That is true in nearly all contexts. If you're asking in good faith, you participate in the community democratically and try to influence others. Just like normal. There was a vote he…

They have 1085 Voters, only 306 Voters voted for the proposal, and it passed. That might clear their governance requirements on paper, its certainly not a majority of their eligible voting community.

Ok, have you ever been part of a directly democratic organization? Not everyone shows up to every meeting or every vote. An organization I was a part of had quorum at 10%.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#504

Post by bArray »

bramhaag wrote: post #402
bArray wrote: post #367

I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]: > Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computation…

> Cryptocurrency is bad, but LLMs are fine? No. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

The core argument they are making is one of resources, I can find myself seeing their point. Another abuse of the service would be to convert videos into ASCII text and check them into git, for example.

The issue with the crypto argument is that it is purely political, it is not affecting the service at all. You may think that you agree because it happens to align with your political sentiment, but it's entirely possible they come for your projects next.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#505

Post by tarpitt »

inigyou wrote: post #439
bko wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather companies just provide me a service at a reasonable price. I don't need a corporation imposing it's ethics on me.

Well this is a charity providing services for free. If you want to be provided a service for a price, go elsewhere.

That money had to have come from somewhere, whether it was taxpayers or individuals. What if I donated? Is it cool to just roll over and allow political groups to hijack a previously neutral service?

Also there are other projects hosted there, and network effects involved.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#506

Post by surgical_fire »

tarpitt wrote: post #501
hogwasher wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather companies actually care (or even just care about seeming to care) about ethics, rather than only caring what makes the line go up the fastest, yes. A company that treats ethics as optional, or that thinks "it's a business" excuses every imaginable sin, is one that will happily screw you and me over too. Also, in the long term, making climate change worse is a catastrophically bad decision for absolutely ev…

[flagged]

Codeberg is based on Berlin, Germany.

Germany doesn't have a "Freedom of Speech" first amendment. As far as I know that is endemic to the US.

If you dislike their stance you can host your cryptocurrency scam elsewhere, there is no shortage of git hosting services.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#507

Post by surgical_fire »

mlrtime wrote: post #497
____mr____ wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the maintainers of Codeberg do not believe that they are a "coffee hosting service" that neutrally hosts code from a variety of perspectives. They do not believe this because this is simply not the reality we live in > Their view is that hosting code is a political act and this is backed by the donations funding Codeberg's operation. They are correct in this view. No matter how "apolitical" platforms like Github an…

No, it's not. If you see everything through these political lense, you end up constantly in a us vs them mentality. Or a "you're either with us, or against us". I don't think it's healthy.

That's not true. You can definitely think critically about the political context of things without being partizan about things.

Taking a stance does not mean you adopted an "us vs. them" mentality.

What a bonkers generalization.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#508

Post by tarpitt »

surgical_fire wrote: post #506
tarpitt wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Codeberg is based on Berlin, Germany. Germany doesn't have a "Freedom of Speech" first amendment. As far as I know that is endemic to the US. If you dislike their stance you can host your cryptocurrency scam elsewhere, there is no shortage of git hosting services.

I didn't say it violated the first ammendment. I said it violated the principle of free speech. It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself.

Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services. No big deal right? After all they can just go somewhere else. No, clearly this is not reasonable. But I say this to demonstrate that your ability operate in society at large depends on the same principle of free speech that you do not extend to others.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#510

Post by surgical_fire »

danpalmer wrote: post #152
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? The impetus makes sense. Crypto is a hive of scams. It makes sense for honest people to want safeguards between their names and those folks. The problem is this seems to have been implemented with zero attention to detail.

It's the lack of attention to detail that bugs me. It's just bad policy making. Writing good policies that encourage the right behaviour and discourage the wrong behaviour, policies that promote a good culture, are HARD. Saying "no crypto" has a wide range of impact, from pushing away crypto projects, to pushing away businesses who see it as an overreach, to pushing away free speech advocates.

Maybe they want to push those people away with their policy. You know, business who see their ethics stance as an overreach, and free speech absolutists, maybe Codeberg is fine with those people not being around.
Post reply on HN