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

The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#11

Post by arcticbull »

foobank wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency. The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why. The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods. Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another).

That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post and let's talk about it. Otherwise, one must be prepared to defend their position about the entire universe of ideas when challenging one - surely you can understand why this is counterproductive, untenable and harmful to the discourse?

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#12

Post by arcticbull »

rendx wrote: post #10
rvz wrote: post #2

Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…

Err, you are aware that electric cars are not more environment friendly than diesel or petrol cars? You more or less just shift the environmental damage to the location of production (batteries, etc). Especially if you consider how modern cars are not meant to be driven for 20+ years. My diesel van is over 25 years old and still going smoothly. Can you imagine to drive a current Tesla for the next 25 years? How many…

The CO2 break-even is around 8 years for an electric car, and the bulk of the other materials are recyclable.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#13

Post by foobank »

arcticbull wrote: post #11
foobank wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency. The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why. The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods. Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post an…

Yes, it's whataboutism.

Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#14

Post by foobank »

rendx wrote: post #10
rvz wrote: post #2

Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…

Err, you are aware that electric cars are not more environment friendly than diesel or petrol cars? You more or less just shift the environmental damage to the location of production (batteries, etc). Especially if you consider how modern cars are not meant to be driven for 20+ years. My diesel van is over 25 years old and still going smoothly. Can you imagine to drive a current Tesla for the next 25 years? How many…

The environment cost of electric cars is via battery production, and happens to be via the grid. That is, producing electric cars is as dirty as the grid.

We're cleaning up the grid, which will clean electric car production cars.

Combustion engines have no such path.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#15

Post by arcticbull »

foobank wrote: post #13
arcticbull wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post an…

Yes, it's whataboutism. Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1]

It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#16

Post by rosndo »

arcticbull wrote: post #15
foobank wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's whataboutism. Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1] It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/…

I think you might have fallen victim to the fallacy fallacy :)

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#17

Post by arcticbull »

rosndo wrote: post #16
arcticbull wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1] It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/…

I think you might have fallen victim to the fallacy fallacy :)

In what way does 'oh you hate crypto? what about airplanes?' add something valuable to this conversation? I'd rather have something concrete I can point to explaining my sentiment rather than simply being rude about it.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#18

Post by rosndo »

arcticbull wrote: post #11
foobank wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency. The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why. The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods. Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post an…

> Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another).

Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship).

> That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there.

The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive. The anonymity offered by some cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#19

Post by arcticbull »

rosndo wrote: post #18
arcticbull wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post an…

> Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship). > That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every oth…

I do not believe that 'without censorship' provides more value than it costs as for the overwhelming majority of individuals 'without censorship' means nothing. As evidenced by the fact the overwhelming majority of crypto 'transactions' take place on centralized, permissioned, censorable exchanges.

I think the costs dramatically outweigh the value provided. However, that is the meat of the conversation we're having.

> The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.

Respectfully disagree. The ability to send money to North Korea and Iran in violation of international sanctions is regressive. The ability for folks on the OFAC and sanctions list to transact is regressive. Enabling ransomware payments is regressive. Enabling criminals to be paid for their crimes is regressive. Enabling crippling of infrastructure like the pipeline attacks is regressive.

Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

#20

Post by rosndo »

arcticbull wrote: post #19
rosndo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship). > That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every oth…

I do not believe that 'without censorship' provides more value than it costs as for the overwhelming majority of individuals 'without censorship' means nothing. As evidenced by the fact the overwhelming majority of crypto 'transactions' take place on centralized, permissioned, censorable exchanges. I think the costs dramatically outweigh the value provided. However, that is the meat of the conversation we're having.…

Bitcoin revolutionized the drug trade, there’s huge value there.

People living in repressive societies like Russia are now able to safely buy weed thanks to cryptocurrencies enabling Hydra.

Before these people would risk prison to get a little stoned, but now they can just buy GPS coordinates on the internet and pick up their drugs without ever interacting with anyone.

It’s not a coincidence that most of the users come from such countries, not the west https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-2021-ge...

Post reply on HN