81–90 of 401 posts
Ah, another Wikipedia policy designed to exclude sex workers from financial services. I notice this wasn't even raised in the RFC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reasons that are all solved with education Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure. People who use cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other related stuff all have a vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Things like "educating others" by cryptobro-splaining all over things is not…
> ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calcul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a platform for pump and dumps. and > 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. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to n…
Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see the…
Ah, another Wikipedia policy designed to exclude sex workers from financial services. I notice this wasn't even raised in the RFC.
Can you expand?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a platform for pump and dumps. and > 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. It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to n…
Man, there's a baby in that bathwater Wiki RFC are throwing out. There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't. So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it. Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calcul…
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.