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

161–170 of 401 posts

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

#161

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

gnomewascool wrote: post #158
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world. Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding? You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.

I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels. It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches. It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.

> I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin

I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere.

> It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles

And many are in fact drawing the line at that.

> I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa

Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.

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

#162

Post by marginalia_nu »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #159
marginalia_nu wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's up to them. I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. I can't in good conscience ignore what I know because there are other things I don't.

> I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith". But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it t…

> If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith"

Yes, if you don't tell me you did the murdering I would accept the money. Your actions are on your conscience.

> But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because "there is no uncertainty about where they come from"?

> I'm confused. How are you certain that the USD donations are clean money, and certain that the Ether must be dirty money? I guess just the vague association with "crypto" is enough?

I have moral responsibility for my actions. Due to the way a blockchain works, I can't accept or withdraw your Ethereum donation without contributing to the blockchain with a transaction fee. I can't fault you for putting it there, that is a matter for your conscience, but I can fault myself for accepting it.

> Just admit that this is about ideological purity and nothing else.

It is not about ideology at all, but about conscience. I believe ideology is almost as harmful to humanity as the blockchain.

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

#163

Post by blacklion »

unicornmama wrote: post #16
devoutsalsa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There just isn't the incentive to use cryptocurrency to donate to Wikipedia. Sure there is. A lot of people have lots of value tied up in crypto, a very liquid asset. It’s also easy to send. I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine, but I know how to donate to Ukraine organizations that accept crypto. If crypto is a small part of your revenue stream, maybe it’s because you haven’t nurtured it as a donation chan…

> I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine You go to your bank and ask them to start a wire transfer. The recipient’s bank will provide the instructions. You can even do this entirely online.

Try to do this in Russian bank now. In Russia.

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

#164

Post by ben-schaaf »

sennight wrote: post #107
KptMarchewa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any detractors claiming that cryptocurrencies will be dead in any timeframe. They are arguing that they are useless and ponzi schemes, but it's very well known that market and people can stay irrational way longer than any bet.

You must not be paying attention then, because many detractors have made the claim repeatedly. It would be funny if it wasn't clearly the result of a predictable feedback loop. I'm really not interested in skylining one particular individual, but if you are genuinely interested in understanding what is happening: pick any one of the many tech writers appearing in the multitude of obituary compilations, then pull up t…

> As far as it being a "ponzi scheme", a pump and dump, a tulip mania, a beanie-baby fad, etc... Just look at the time scale for a big clue as to why such an argument is laughable.

To look at why this counter argument is laughable you simply have to do a bit of research into actual ponzi schemes:

* Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme for ~18-28 years

* Reed Slatkin, 15 years

* Dona Branca, 14 years

* Tenka Ikka no Kai, 14 years

It's difficult to actually classify crypto, but it certainly falls into greater fool theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory).

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

#165

Post by flotzam »

kuschku wrote: post #154
flotzam wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia used BitPay, the most widely loathed of all cryptocurrency payment processors - https://debitpay.directory/anti-bitcoin/ - and required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data: https://bitpay.com/464448/donate It's a high friction, culture-clashing payment flow. I certainly noped out of that form real fast. For comparison: https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/ And another campaign on…

> required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data Yes, that’s known as KYC laws, which are required if you’re a payment processor of any kind.

Seems more like preemptive overcompliance. Plenty of reputable charities accept anonymous donations just fine, whether it's cryptocurrency or cash by mail.

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

#166

Post by baobabKoodaa »

I always find it weird when a charity or non-profit publically announces that they stop accepting certain forms of donations due to ideological reasons. It's a signal that the organization isn't particularly starving for donations. If you were planning to donate to Wikipedia any sum less than $130,100.94, remember that 70% of Wikipedians consider such donations to have no impact at all. So if you were about to donate $100k, for example, nobody at Wikipedia cares about such a tiny donation. So maybe donate that $100k to an organization that actually needs it instead?

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

#167

Post by josefx »

0xRolex wrote: post #113
josefx wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you're begging for money But that is just it, Wikipedia isn't that desperate for money that it has to do tricks for con artists and scammers. Now if Wikipedia was tethering at the edge of non existence it might be excusable, but it isn't, it is making enough to keep running without pandering to the scum of the earth.

First i'd love it if out of pure courtesy you avoided using stuff like "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way. Then with banners like "Help us save Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in danger, donate" on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"

> "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way.

The top comment was classifying crypto coins as mostly " part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps". I was referring to that and if you identify with any of these points, you are most welcome otherwise I apologize for the confusion.

> on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"

They really aren't, they are even several years ahead of their own financial predictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

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

#168

Post by baobabKoodaa »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #162
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do accept donations on good faith, but I can't in good faith accept crypto donations as there is no uncertainty about where they come from. If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith". But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it t…

> If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith" Yes, if you don't tell me you did the murdering I would accept the money. Your actions are on your conscience. > But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because…

> I have moral responsibility for my actions. Due to the way a blockchain works, I can't accept or withdraw your Ethereum donation without contributing to the blockchain with a transaction fee. I can't fault you for putting it there, that is a matter for your conscience, but I can fault myself for accepting it.

Are you hypothesizing that the net amount of transaction fees paid on the Ethereum network will be higher if you accept the donation, compared to if you don't accept the donation? I have a feeling that you might be accidentally comparing to a scenario where the donator does not donate and subsequently never transfers that cryptocurrency anywhere ever. This is not a realistic scenario. The donator is almost certainly going to transfer that crypto somewhere anyway, so it doesn't appear to me like your action of refusing the donation reduces the net amount of transaction fees.

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

#169

Post by miracle2k »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #166

I always find it weird when a charity or non-profit publically announces that they stop accepting certain forms of donations due to ideological reasons. It's a signal that the organization isn't particularly starving for donations. If you were planning to donate to Wikipedia any sum less than $130,100.94, remember that 70% of Wikipedians consider such donations to have no impact at all. So if you were about to donate…

Exactly right. And note that this is done purely and openly for ideological reasons - there is no maintenance cost argument being made.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

cycomanic wrote: post #98

I find many of the replies here fascinating. On one hand whenever there is talk about government regulating some industry or actor a large portion of commenter here reply that if you don't agree with the practice don't use them, no regulation needed. Now an organisation does exactly that, they decide that they don't want to use a "service" that they ethically disagree with, and lots of replies call it pointless virtu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN