Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia RFC to stop accepting cryptocurrencies passes by majority vote

meta.wikimedia.org

291–300 of 401 posts

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

#291
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was that an option? What was the voting results otherwise? So many questions

You can count it up yourself without the exclusions, voting on wikimedia is just editing the talk page to include your comment with the word Oppose/Support and a signature. The raw counts are: Strongly support: 35 (+1 with no icon, not sure if this got counted) Support: 192 (+1 with no icon) Weakly support: 4 Weakly oppose: 5 Oppose: 86 Strongly oppose: 20 So the "raw" figures are 233 to 111 or 68%, still a clear maj…

Thanks! That makes me more comfortable with how they normalized the data. It wasnt like a “FCC Net Neutrality” result at all

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

#292

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…

Ukraine received millions of dollars of donations in cryptocurrency. So your last statement is not really correct.

This is crypto’s second largest use case, behind as a means for illegal activities. Crypto is easier to send in extreme situations than fiat currencies.

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

#293

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…

Its because wikipedia has been taken over by the same types that most other big tech companies have been taken over by. Just look at anything political and you'll realize they have for the most part won the war on information and are dutifully silencing and censoring and disagreeing thoughts or facts.

The website is not as neutral as it was in its heyday, and that reflection comes in this headline alone.

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

#294
Ideological payment censorship is a known issue with digital payments, and the core so-what of BTC that has been lost in the cryptocurrency sales pitch somewhat. The first block has an anti-'08 bailout message in it for a reason.

These censorship use cases are slowly moving towards more possible mainstream familiarity and empathy, and in my opinion also moving towards impacting progressive activist groups with axes to grind and payment rails dependent on the targets of those activism.

When that eventually comes to a head, as it seems likely, then the real decision point on cryptocurrencies will occur.

Assange gets payments/donations cut off from all the major providers - ok, he's possibly a Russian asset, not a great personality fit for whistleblower empathy, did some shady/bad things, ok who cares.

OnlyFans almost gets its payment rails cut off by investors due to its core content - ok, I may not know camgirls/boys, but I can empathize with them a bit more and certainly don't like Investment Banks and Visa telling folks how to spend their evenings.

Now, taking a look at climate action groups, and wikis that try to leverage free and fair information for a public good. Also, not much has changed since 2008. The predatory financial behaviors still occur, maybe just called something differently - see Canada banning foreign purchases of homes. Depending on which side of the abortion debate you are on, large chunks of the country are moving in divergent directions on it. Unions in tech-y warehouse jobs have serious OPSEC concerns and are shifting over to Signal for coordination.

All of these causes and related groups rely on digital rails for payments, information sharing, and organization (Slack groups, Paypal accounts, GSuite free-ish emails, Signal groups etc). There is already a trend of building OPSEC programs for activist-y groups, and leveraging data science/FOIA for activist research. The McDonald's CEO was nabbed for this via a ~FOIA against the Chicago mayor. All of these causes' desired outcomes fundamentally oppose core tenants of corporate infrastructure, pending some major change. Climate activism especially comes to mind.

When the real conversations and possible anger actually start occurring in these groups, andthe real reactions from their counter-parties start occurring in public, and the fights over what gets into a wikipedia article occur in conjunction more so than already, a censorship-free payment rail comes into play. That means paper cash, cryptocurrency, or maybe some new tech. But I doubt Zelle or Venmo are safe at that point. I think the real so-what debate about crypto starts at that point.

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

#295
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once wanted to lend money to my brother only to discover that my bank imposes monthly caps on money transfers "for your safety". Cryptocurrencies never do such dumb shit.

This seems unlikely, given that people buy houses with money transfers.

You are correct. Banks have many mechanisms for sending money from A to B, on the low end there’s Zelle, then there’s free inter bank transfers, then good old wire transfers (unlimited amounts, usually cost $25).

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

#296

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 think you made a great argument, if you don't agree with cryptocurrency, stop using wikipedia.

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

#297

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.

And what moral reasons could those possibly be for Wikipedia?

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a case for considering crypto de facto blood money. I wouldn't accept crypto on the basis that I can't interact with it without contributing to its ecosystem. What sort of a terrible person would I be if I considered crypto to be a force for evil, but greased its machinery just because there was money in it for me? It's not about signalling moral purity, it's about holding myself to my own standards. How coul…

By that token, shouldn't wikimedia be engaging in thorough KYC to ensure none of the money they accept is tainted or as you referred to it: "blood money"?

There are differing concerns.

The first is what you're addressing: is this particular bit of value from a bad place? Both systems have issues there. I still think fiat is better, because the bank the transfer originates from has presumably done KYC. I also don't think it's that big of a deal; there are much worse things to do with drug money.

The second is entirely different: is accepting this currency going to help proliferate problems associated with the currency? I.e. does accepting Bitcoin legitimize it and implicitly encourage others to use Bitcoin, amplifying any environmental or money laundering concerns?

I don't have a hard stance, I'm not a member of any of the relevant groups. I can see where they're coming from, and I don't find it a crazy stance. Really, either side seems fair.

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

#299

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…

> 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.

How can you write that when you just called crypto a "scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps?" If your characterization is in earnest then any charity would reflexively avoid such a thing. (Possibly excepting Sci-hub who cannot receive donations any other way-- at least that's the only positive edge case I can think of that warrants the "for the most part" hedge)

Edit: clarification

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

#300
post #241

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.

Only where gambling is illegal and to illegal casinos. Legal casinos do not want the hassle with KYC, market volatility and the often slow transactions. And neither does the customers.

My understanding is that in the USA there are a lot of cases where gambling online is legal, but where it is illegal for banks to process transactions relating to those services. In such cases cryptocurrency is helpful, even though the wagering is not illegal, and the casino itself is not illegal.

There are also cases in my own country where cryptocurrency is very useful for gambling, with nothing illegal taking place.

Post reply on HN