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

191–200 of 401 posts

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

#191

Post by sparkie »

Aachen wrote: post #137
once_inc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-chai…

I think you misunderstand the Network part of the Lightning Network. It is not necessary for users to have a direct payment channel to Wikimedia in order to donate to them. They just need to have an active channel to anybody in the network who is capable of routing a payment request to Wikimedia's node.

The assumption is that Lightning users already have active open channels to other nodes in the network, and so making a new donation to Wikimedia would not require any additional channel opening, and no on-chain activity.

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

#193

Post by sparkie »

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…

It is pointless virtue signalling because the primary argument for ending bitcoin donations is about energy usage, but the effect of ending bitcoin donations will have precisely zero impact on the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network.

This isn't the same as when you boycott a company's products and it causes a loss of sales.

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

#194

Post by cdiddy2 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #85
Mindwipe wrote: post #52

Ah, another Wikipedia policy designed to exclude sex workers from financial services. I notice this wasn't even raised in the RFC.

What? Cryptocurrencies are somehow the saviour of sex workers? Can you expand?

This expands a bit. Banks don't like to bank sex workers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/05/bitcoin-a-lifeline-for-sex-w...

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

#195

Post by j16sdiz »

denkmoon wrote: post #125
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wikimedia Foundation have hundreds of million of dollars. Nothing need saving

See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...

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

#196

Post by lxgr »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #176
marginalia_nu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not looking at outcomes, I'm looking at actions, my actions to be specific. What you do is up to you. In the first scenario I'm contributing to a bad thing, in the next I'm not. It really is as simple as that. There is one thing I have control over in this life, and that is what I choose to do. Consequently, that is also what is what I opt to judge.

> I'm not looking at outcomes, I'm looking at actions, my actions to be specific. What you do is up to you. In the first scenario I'm contributing to a bad thing, in the next I'm not. It really is as simple as that. Okay, based on this clarification it appears that we agree on the subject matter, you just didn't like the terminology I used to describe it. Your description is exactly what I mean when I say motivated b…

> You just want to avoid associating yourself with what you consider to be a "bad thing" - regardless of whether your choice makes the world better, worse, or has no impact at all.

In some ethical frameworks, associating yourself with a thing you consider bad thing is bad regardless of the size or type of the outcome of that association.

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

#197

Post by marginalia_nu »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #176
marginalia_nu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not looking at outcomes, I'm looking at actions, my actions to be specific. What you do is up to you. In the first scenario I'm contributing to a bad thing, in the next I'm not. It really is as simple as that. There is one thing I have control over in this life, and that is what I choose to do. Consequently, that is also what is what I opt to judge.

> I'm not looking at outcomes, I'm looking at actions, my actions to be specific. What you do is up to you. In the first scenario I'm contributing to a bad thing, in the next I'm not. It really is as simple as that. Okay, based on this clarification it appears that we agree on the subject matter, you just didn't like the terminology I used to describe it. Your description is exactly what I mean when I say motivated b…

> You just want to avoid associating yourself with what you consider to be a "bad thing" - regardless of whether your choice makes the world better, worse, or has no impact at all.

No, this is not about association, it's about resolve. I do not want to act against my own values. That would make me a hypocrite.

I can't make the world a good or a bad place, I am not God. The world is what it is and it's largely outside of my control. What I can choose is what I should be like, what manner of person I should be, and then hold myself to that standard, not for others to judge, but for myself.

If the world is terrible, that doesn't mean I must be a terrible person along with it. If it isn't, then that's great!

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

#199

Post by sparkie »

ketzu wrote: post #108
derevaunseraun wrote: post #77

I'm not a cryptobro, but this annoying ass attitude is gonna turn me into one I wonder what would happen if crypto somehow managed to replace central banks and how the world would change

> I wonder what would happen if crypto somehow managed to replace central banks and how the world would change My personal guess is that we would recreate most of the infrastructure on top, but with monetary policy now in the hand of a select few individuals instead of governments. The consequences for the world at large would be interesting to explore.

> but with monetary policy now in the hand of a select few individuals instead of governments

Bitcoin's monetary policy is fixed. It is in nobody's hand, but everybody who decides to run a validating node.

Monetary policy is controlled by central banks, which are privately owned. On paper, they're regulated by government, but in practice, politicians are easily bought, bribed or have their hands tied. The monetary policy is not decided by the people you elect into government.

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

#200

Post by lxgr »

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…

Accepting crypto legitimizes crypto.

„Even Wikipedia/Wikipedia, a charity with high ethical standards accepts it, how bad can it be?“ might not be the most well-reasoned conclusion, some people will come to it.

If it doesn‘t disproportionately endanger the „core purpose“ of Wikimedia, why not avoid something like that altogether?

Post reply on HN