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

261–270 of 401 posts

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

#261

Post by replygirl »

superkuh wrote: post #234
ben-schaaf wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest transaction fee in the last 100 transactions has been 4c. That's not a lot but very far from "feeless". Monero mines blocks every 2 minutes; hardly "instant". A full confirmation takes ~20 minutes. Source: https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take

As opposed to a normal credit card transaction which takes days.

But not in a practical sense for the user. You don't have to wait 20 minutes for your authorization to clear so you can walk out of Dunkin with your iced coffee

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

#262

Post by teekert »

lxgr wrote: post #217
teekert wrote: post #104

The environment? Then run a lightning node, or use Cardano, problem solved. Why are we trowing the baby out with the bathwater?

Can Lightning exist without the Bitcoin blockchain?

When will technical solutions reduce blockchain energy usage enough for the anti-blockhain people to find it acceptable?

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

#263

Post by roamerz »

indymike wrote: post #249
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…

> 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. Charities generally have the luxury of having core values superior to delivering a return to investors. To not accept crypto for moral reasons makes much more sense to a not for profit that a for profit business.

Yup core values. More often than not sticking to them come with some kind of cost.

Kudos Wikepedia. This world would be a better place if more did the same and honored their core values at whatever cost.

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

#264

Post by robonerd »

DocTomoe wrote: post #237
ancymon wrote: post #138

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.

I'd much rather them having an old-style Google Adsense-type ad somewhere than their annual, 50%-of-the-screen guilt-tripping donations ad.

I couldn't disagree more. Those guilt-tripping donation ads are obnoxious, but I would much rather Wikipedia be an obnoxious beggar than sink so low as to be make themselves into corporate propagandists for hire. That would be much worse.

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

#265

Post by xadhominemx »

superkuh wrote: post #238
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…

Oh. Hi. I guess I'm named nobody. I've just been nobodying for many years. But nobody pays attention to me because they're all fascinated/horrified with what the finance bros are doing off chain. No one likes to read about some dude quietly using bitcoin to pay for things like VPSes, computer hardware (newegg), etc, the last 7 years. It's not as exciting so I don't exist.

Newegg does not accept Bitcoin for payment. They will allow you to pay via an intermediary who liquidates your Bitcoin and pays Newegg in dollars

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

#266

Post by grumple »

sparkie wrote: post #199
ketzu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 po…

> It is in nobody's hand, but everybody who decides to run a validating node.

Those nodes are literally owned by people. The wealthier the person, the more nodes they can run. Which is exactly how crypto took off; drug cartels mined it, dealt with it, making money both on selling the coins to buyers for cash and on selling the product to the buyers.

Large organizations and wealthy people, criminal or not, can and do control all proof of work (by controlling more workers) and proof of stake (by mining, purchasing, and holding more crypto). And because of the secrecy, we don't know who in many cases (ok... the various intelligence agencies might), and they aren't effectively regulated in any way.

All crypto has done is make it so the only requirement to gain wealth is to already be wealthy. This is far more direct of a relationship with crypto than with real currency, where you at least have to do actual work of some sort to make money.

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

#267

Post by lxgr »

teekert wrote: post #262
lxgr wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Lightning exist without the Bitcoin blockchain?

When will technical solutions reduce blockchain energy usage enough for the anti-blockhain people to find it acceptable?

I don‘t think "the anti-blockchain people" is as homogenous a front as you might imagine it.

Some object on the grounds of PoW mining and its incentive structure; others due to their tendencies to disproportionately accumulate wealth to early adopters; yet others due to widespread predatory and/or misleading marketing. I‘m probably forgetting several other reasons here.

Personally, anything based on proof-of-scarce-resource is pretty much a no-go (unless it would suddenly provide benefits more than outweighing the damage it does), but definitely not only that.

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

#268

Post by lxgr »

sparkie wrote: post #225
lxgr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

This is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.

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

#269

Post by robonerd »

In response to these kind of stories, the comment sections online are always filled with crypto advocates upset about the organization not taking their money. This really makes clear who needs who. Crypto needs wikipedia much more than wikipedia needs crypto.

Wikipedia is not hard up for cash (if you earnestly believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break.) But crypto is hard up for legitimacy.

Post reply on HN