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

131–140 of 401 posts

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

#131

Post by devoutsalsa »

cycomanic wrote: post #100
devoutsalsa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "go to your bank". I was thinking "walk into a bank branch" XD I don't think I've ever wired money in my life. I guess I never needed to. And the few occasions I needed to send some money internationally, I've simply sent crypto, used Western Union, or something like PayPal or Revolut.

I find that mind-boggling. How did/do you pay rent? How do you get paid? Coming from Europe people use wiretransfers for pretty much everything over e.g. credit cards (obviously there are differences between countries but wire transfers are very common everywhere).

I send electronic payments all the time, just not payments big enough to exceed maximum transfer limits. For example, Coinbase might say max transfer for ACH of 5000 USD per day, for larger deposits use a wire transfer. I’ve never done the type of transfer that exceeds the maximum ACH limit.

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

#132

Post by GoblinSlayer »

unicornmama wrote: post #21
devoutsalsa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My physical bank is in a different country. As a crypto enthusiast, I’m obligated to migrate to a remote tax haven full of like minded nut jobs.

So you chose to unbank yourself :) I have transacted millions in crypto and wire transfers. Banking with crypto is like the 1970s - exorbitant fees. To do anything useful with it I have to offramp to fiat which drum rolls ends with a wire transfer.

I once wanted to lend money to my brother only to discover that my bank imposes monthly caps on money transfers "for your safety". Cryptocurrencies never do such dumb shit.

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

#133

Post by preisschild »

iso1631 wrote: post #124
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…

> 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?

Monero and Monero related projects, like Haveno.

Its probably one of the most used cryptocurrencies for normal transactions, as most darkweb marketplaces use it.

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

#134

Post by e-dt »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this is all cryptocurrencies, not just PoW? That's slightly surprising, although it probably simplifies things.

They were only accepting PoW cryptocurrencies anyway. In future, if PoS crypto gains wide currency (ha), I assume the matter can be reopened.

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

#135

Post by jimmydorry »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #122
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 coul…

By that token, shouldn't wikimedia be engaging in thorough KYC to ensure none of the money they accept is tainted or as you referred to it: "blood money"?

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

#136

Post by doliveira »

mardifoufs wrote: post #59
ohgodplsno wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So it must be purged from everywhere. Yes.

I guess to each his own religion.

You know, it's also quite a cult-ish thing to accuse your critics of being fanatics.

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

#137

Post by Aachen »

once_inc wrote: post #68
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…

If they run a lightning wallet and open it for donations, they'd see that percentage rise dramatically at virtually no cost.

How does that make a difference? As I understood it, every individual would still have to do a regular on-chain transaction, it's only if you later realize you actually wanted to donate more than you did that this could be useful because then you avoid the full transaction fee. Or if you let it run over years without settling and do a yearly donation, though I'm not clear on the implications there.

Or, if the on-chain parties are just Wikipedia and a few big payment service providers to avoid that everyone has to do the setup individually, you've basically reinvented paypal credits or, less evil-ly, liberapay.

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

#138

Post by ancymon »

They also oppose having ads on Wikipedia. Personally I don't see much difference between banners asking for donations and ads. I understand there are "bad" ads (privacy violating or ones causing conflict of interest), but not all of them are like this. Same with cryptocurrencies - some of them are "scam", but not all of them. It's strange that Wikipedia sees world as black and white.

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

#139

Post by rsolva »

fergie wrote: post #95

"cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries" Yet a bigger problem is that too much money is moved out of these countries by those in power and hamstered away in various global tax havens. I recommend "Moneyland" for anybody wanting to learn more.

I am in the middle of Moneyland now after seeing it recommended here on HN. A fascinating and horrifying read that also provides some context to what is happening in Ukraine.

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

#140

Post by logicchains »

missingdays wrote: post #126
AlexAltea wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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%

The rights of minorities don't matter?
Post reply on HN