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

221–230 of 401 posts

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

#221

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

xtracto wrote: post #211
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…

I dont think they really care about the environment. If they did, they would accept PoS or similar environmentally friendly cryptos. That way they would be promoting their use instead of the old inefficient PoW ones.

Maybe they prefer currencies that ought be under democratic control, rather than crypto scheme that are designed to be be controlled politically (which includes democratically).

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

#222

Post by topranks »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #12
garbagetime wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There just isn't the incentive to use cryptocurrency to donate to Wikipedia. For some other kinds of payments, such as gambling payments, cryptocurrency is a popular option.

> 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…

Doesn’t make sense really though.

How do these people buy groceries or pay regular bills? Most places don’t accept crypto for payments.

If and when the whole world has moved to crypto payments I’m sure they’ll review it again. Until then the argument there are lots of people who have crypto and have not heard of / don’t know how to use a Visa card stretches credulity.

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

#223

Post by baobabKoodaa »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #210
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #176

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. 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…

I’m super confused. A person has acknowledged that participating in eth (even to accept eth) uses eth, and they are fundamentally against eth… so they don’t use it. You’re making their position sound more boneheaded than it is by adding arbitrary it’s. because the person doesn’t participate in your arbitrary hypothetical making they are not looking at outcomes?

> because the person doesn’t participate in your arbitrary hypothetical making they are not looking at outcomes?

No, they are making that statement. Direct quote: "I'm not looking at outcomes". I'm taking them at their word when they say that they are not looking at outcomes.

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

#224

Post by namdnay »

px43 wrote: post #179
namdnay wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

book flights with crypto? which airline or travel agency accepts crypto? I don't see how it could work with so much volatility. You could buy fully modifiable/refundable first class tickets and use them as free options to bet on the crypto in question

Expedia has accepted Bitcoin for almost a decade: https://www.expedia.com/Checkout/BitcoinTermsAndConditions

That's not "accepting payment with bitcoin" - it's just a link for coinbase to convert your bitcoin to USD before booking. Look at the T&Cs, it's a USD booking underneath

Accepting payment with bitcoin means using bitcoin as the currency in the PNR, just like you can use euros or yen or pounds or whatever

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

#225

Post by sparkie »

lxgr wrote: post #205
sparkie wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Accepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect). Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining. It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.

The majority of miner revenue is a subsidy given via inflation. It's effectively paid for by all bitcoin holders, and is decoupled from usage and fees. Fewer people transacting is going to make no difference. Miners aren't going to suddenly think "Oh, perhaps I should mine less now that these clowns at Wikimedia aren't taking donations."

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

#226

Post by namdnay »

px43 wrote: post #181
namdnay wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmmm yes in which case calling it "paying in crypto" is a massive stretch. I can also "buy a flight ticket with a used car" if there's a dealership next to the travel agency

It's no different than buying things with a credit card and having the payment processor convert your currency to the local currency etc.

I think if the payment processor does that, they will also reimburse you in your currency, not the local one

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

#227

Post by dundarious »

danamit wrote: post #212
topranks wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- It’s not significant in terms of the funds it brings in. - Crypto has been on a 10+ year long quest for “adoption”. So far it’s been fairly pathetic. Organisations who accept it provide a focal point for crypto advocates to point to, legitimising it and luring more retail investors into the Ponzi. - The environmental impact is massive, which makes accepting it ethically dubious and does not align with the Wikimedia…

I worked and got paid in crypto in the past, which made me able to move out. Also I used crypto to pay for services, I just bought a GPU (for gaming, current one broke, I do not mine crypto) with crypto that's still shipping. I won't call the adoption pathetic, it is just that you are not in the circle of adoption/need. Just like I see people mentioning services here that they say they cannot live without and I do no…

If you use almost any goods or services almost anywhere in the world, you at least indirectly benefit from or use the global banking system, as it is the de facto (and probably quite often de jure) system for payments. There are no alternatives that are as good as it, on pretty much any axis. This includes all crypto.

I'm not trying to unfairly critique your personal choices, but that's just the reality. Just like how you basically can't possibly survive in a city without participating somehow in the global capitalist market economy, you can't claim to personally not partake in the global banking system. It's everywhere, and you might personally take issue with it and of course can critique it, but you can't claim to not partake or even partly benefit.

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

#228

Post by charcircuit »

lxgr wrote: post #214
charcircuit wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked page only 0.08% of revenue came from cryptocurrency. It's likely that without that 0.08% margin Wikipedia could still be kept running (which is part of the reason why taking cryptocurrency donations was removed). >You don't usually donate to charities so they can speculate with that money. Similarly one wouldn't want your donation to just sit somewhere reducing in value due to inflation. If you donate…

Is Wikimedia hoarding cash? If so, I’d hope that they would have some kind of money management in place (adhering to the same ethical standards as for payments, as otherwise this move would be quite hypocritical); if not, inflation does not matter.

As of June 31st 2021 they had $86.8 million of cash which made up about 36% of their total assets.

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

#230

Post by topranks »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #178
eynsham wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RfC is passed but the effect of that is to make a request. Imagine you and I were to form a committee to discuss, e.g., landscaping in municipal gardens: we might pass a motion to suggest planting different flowers, but that would amount only to a request to the gardeners/the competent authority.

Okay. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia politics so it seems I used incorrect term again.

Your confusing the Wikipedia community of users, which anyone is free to participate in, and have passed this RFC, with the Wikimedia Foundation, which accepts donations and runs the systems and networks that Wikipedia runs on.

https://networkcultures.org/cpov/2010/03/27/mayo-fuster-more...

Such hybrid and “community” driven systems are far from problem-free. But this one has created Wikipedia, which most people think is a good thing. Obviously it’s tricky to walk the line.

Post reply on HN