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

Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

meta.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 401 posts

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#121

Post by oska »

aaron695 wrote: post #23

Wikipedia is on a knife edge. It can flip quickly. I'm not sure what they are doing to keep it stable, but this is a bad sign. This should not be up to a vote. Wikipedia is there to be an encyclopedia, not have opinions on currency. People should be prepared for when Wikipedia becomes the enemy. F-Droid, DDG, Cloudflare all flipped at points. The problem is if Wikipedia treats themselves like a democracy with no stro…

I just vouched your comment.

In return (not really), wondering if you could give me a little more detail on F-Droid 'flipping'. Because this is news to me.

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#122

Post by marginalia_nu »

mardifoufs wrote: post #37

Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps. Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anythi…

There's a case for considering crypto de facto blood money. I wouldn't accept crypto on the basis that I can't interact with it without contributing to its ecosystem.

What sort of a terrible person would I be if I considered crypto to be a force for evil, but greased its machinery just because there was money in it for me? It's not about signalling moral purity, it's about holding myself to my own standards. How could I look myself in the mirror if I didn't?

I don't care if other people accept crypto. I don't even care if they barter ivory, tiger hides, and congolese blood diamonds with Vladimir Putin himself. That's between them and their conscience to sort out.

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#123

Post by jackvalentine »

5560675260 wrote: post #114
jackvalentine wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should they accept anything that can be exchanged for fiat without too much fuss?

Yes? As long as "without too much fuss" holds - I don't see why not.

So military surplus? Brown coal? These are things with functioning markets. Should wikipedia be obligated to accept my donation of them?

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#124

Post by iso1631 »

mandmandam wrote: post #73
bb88 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a a platform for pump and dumps. and > Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to n…

Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see the…

> There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized

Name two?

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#125

Post by denkmoon »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #118
mandmandam wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see the…

> I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > Man, there's a baby in that bathwater It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!" Well, * no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a…

Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving.

I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world.

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#126

Post by missingdays »

AlexAltea wrote: post #103
colesantiago wrote: post #2

This is great news, it is pretty pointless to use cryptocurrencies at all anyway since for Wikipedia: > Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels. Remember that Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites on the planet, I'm also assuming that other websites trying to accept crypto have even smaller percentages rendering cryptocurrencies as payment useless, not t…

> What is really happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all [Citation needed] Over the past years I've been able to book flights, shop hardware, get hotels and rental cars, renew my domain, pay for my server with cryptocurrencies.

So, you are 0.08%

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#128

Post by flotzam »

bb88 wrote: post #66
mardifoufs wrote: post #37

Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps. Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anythi…

> Honestly the reasoning is weird. Don't get me wrong, I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a a platform for pump and dumps. and > Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to n…

>> I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam

> enough of a reason to not accept it.

Not if that's simply another instance of Sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crap"): https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#129

Post by GoblinSlayer »

mardifoufs wrote: post #75
secretsatan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Explain? I'm not trying to be offensive or mean, it's just that the reasons given for the RFC had little to do with Wikimedia and reminded me of a typical moral crusade. For example, when they say that it is a huge stain on wikimedia's reputation when the reality is that they started accepted crypto donations 8 years ago with absolutely no controversy (a part from this one)... that to me reeks of projection when almo…

And since when fiat money pass any moral test?

Re: Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

#130

Post by Cynddl »

constantlm wrote: post #120

In the context of their yearly guilt tripping banners asking for money in a manner that sounds like Wikipedia is on the brink of death, this virtue signaling is disappointing.

Two very different things. The banner is set by the Wikimedia Foundation, while this is a vote by the community.
Post reply on HN