271–280 of 401 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Not when the majority of supply is distributed in just a few years, or, much worse yet, all at launch in the hands of the founders plus whoever they decided to handout tokens to by whatever publicly unverifiable way.
> Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Are we speaking relative to fiat here? .... Lol. Besides, there were many attempts at fair distributions, so you're simply wrong there. My favorite, Nano, distributed small amounts to people who solved captchas between 2015 and 2017.
But so far crypto has created wealth inequality which is way worse than that in fiat. Yes, there have been attempts at fair distribution, but to re-iterate my point above, they would need to spread distribution over a long timespan (gold has been distributed over millenia).
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.
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. > Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory.
That applies to article content , not stuff like this RFC. Maybe an example would be clearer: OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so decides not to accept it for donations. NOT OK: The community doesn't like cryptocurrency, so turns the Bitcoin article into a hit-piece that only covers criticisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral
According to Wikipedia's co-founder, it hasn't aimed to be neutral in a long while. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I tried to buy a pizza from Dominos last week. Order online, pick up in person and pay with cash. Should have been simple, but it devolved into 5 minutes of Domino's employees trying to figure out "who's on cash?" (Had the credentials to open the cash drawer.) That person was apparently taking a smoke break, but when they came back it still took them another minute of furious hollywood hacker style keyboard pounding at the POS systems (accidental dual acronym of 'Point of Sale' and 'Piece of Shit'?) to open the cash drawer and give me my $1.20 change. Great job guys.
If you forgive me for being a little conspiratorial, I think point of sale systems must be designed to streamline credit card payments while artificially stalling cash transactions, as part of the financial industry's war against the cash economy.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to include them is to make it legal and forbid the banks to not accept money from them, not to create alternative lawless universe.
> make it legal and forbid the banks to not accept money from them Just like the cannabis industry! Oh wait...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Occam's razor would suggest to do nothing, but ideological axes are being wielded. This will turn a lot of people off.