The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
blog.mollywhite.net
The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#2Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it.
But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was the only system used. It is not.
It’s like making an argument against driving anything with a wheel for environmental reasons, because most vehicles are still running on either petrol or diesel. (And willfully ignoring alternatives like electric cars)
Instead of continuing to generalize all cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin (and PoW), criticize the others that are either PoS, or use their own consensus algorithm and assess them if they are environmentally unfriendly or are unsuitable for payments.
Since clearly the author keeps recycling the same known predictable critiques on Bitcoin which does not apply to all cryptocurrencies.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#3Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
To me, it reeks of a new form of virtue signalling.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#4Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
Which are these climate neutral crypto currencies?
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#5Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#6Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
Crypto is in a rough spot rn regarding consensus mechanisms. POW is seen as unsustainable, but pos is sheer plutocracy. I would rather have pow and accept the environmental damage rather than centralize the fuck out of what was supposed to be a financial revolution “for the people”.
XMRs randomx pow algorithm is a step in the right direction for sustainability and decentralization.
Inb4 “pow actually has a larger barrier to entry!”
Consider this: at least mining operations have to cover their op expenses by selling their rewards.
With pos, there’s an incentive to put your rewards back into your validator pool further restricting supply for the general public.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#7Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
> The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph.
Exactly. The authors argument against Bitcoin is recycled and is already widely known. Bitcoin is the easiest to attack and everyone knows it is still unsuitable for payments. Hence this, how does Bitcoin’s unsuitability apply to all cryptocurrencies which that is her argument?
As for the rambling on about the re-centralization of the web3, that is reserved for another another debate since they are talking about using cryptocurrencies for fast and efficient payments and donations. Not web3.
> They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
The only one they can name is Bitcoin or any other PoW cryptocurrency.
The author chooses to generalize where it is unsafe to do so as if only PoW cryptocurrencies exist.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#8Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
The crypto community has been so bad at denouncing and excluding the bad elements and ideas from within itself that more and more people simply want to have nothing to do with you. We know you can spend pages and pages on your yes-buts but we're just tired and would prefer if you moved along.
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#9Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency.
The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why.
The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods.
Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?
Re: The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
#10Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was…
Err, you are aware that electric cars are not more environment friendly than diesel or petrol cars? You more or less just shift the environmental damage to the location of production (batteries, etc).
Especially if you consider how modern cars are not meant to be driven for 20+ years. My diesel van is over 25 years old and still going smoothly. Can you imagine to drive a current Tesla for the next 25 years? How many cars will you "use up"? Let's compare the environmental damage.