Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
foundation.mozilla.org
Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#2TLDR: Due to climate concerns:
1. Mozilla will no longer accept 'proof-of-work' cryptocurrencies, which are more energy intensive.
2. Mozilla will accept 'proof-of-stake' cryptocurrencies, which are less energy intensive. Mozilla will develop and share a list of cryptocurrencies we accept by the end of Q2 2022.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#3There is a concentrated effort by authoritarians to push proof of stake oligarchical systems. By making up ESG concerns and skewing the narrative to be “using energy is bad, actually”, we weaken our decentralized products.
Proof of stake is worthless, no it’s actually negative as it will be the lever the state uses to control cryptocurrency. You can’t find the miner, but you can surely find the stalker and force them with violence to respect the will of the state.
This will become far more obvious to people in the next 5 years. Proof of stake was always a trap.
I’m sorry Mozilla has been captured by idiots who will sell our your freedoms for State support.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#4They need 3 months to figure out to only accept proof-of-stake and now they need another 4 months to figure out which of those they want to accept? I bet they spend more time on meetings about it than they will get crypto donations in 2022.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#5There is a concentrated effort by authoritarians to push proof of stake oligarchical systems. By making up ESG concerns and skewing the narrative to be “using energy is bad, actually”, we weaken our decentralized products. Proof of stake is worthless, no it’s actually negative as it will be the lever the state uses to control cryptocurrency. You can’t find the miner, but you can surely find the stalker and force them…
Crypto hermit yells at cloud. No matter what crypto currency you are using if there is a possibility of a 51% attack there will be state actors and if they want it hard enough they will win because in the end they control the computing and communication resources. It's just a bad concept in a centralised physical world.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#6There is a concentrated effort by authoritarians to push proof of stake oligarchical systems. By making up ESG concerns and skewing the narrative to be “using energy is bad, actually”, we weaken our decentralized products. Proof of stake is worthless, no it’s actually negative as it will be the lever the state uses to control cryptocurrency. You can’t find the miner, but you can surely find the stalker and force them…
Crypto hermit yells at cloud. No matter what crypto currency you are using if there is a possibility of a 51% attack there will be state actors and if they want it hard enough they will win because in the end they control the computing and communication resources. It's just a bad concept in a centralised physical world.
This is no realistic majority attack against Bitcoin today, and we must ensure that it is not possible. It is impossible to prevent State fuckery in PoS, this is by design.
There already are state actors using this as their future battleground. The future of war is hashwar to inflict economic turmoil on the enemy.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#7TLDR:
> Mozilla will no longer accept 'proof-of-work' cryptocurrencies, which are more energy intensive.
> Mozilla will accept 'proof-of-stake' cryptocurrencies, which are less energy intensive.
Very unsurprising. So they are still accepting cryptocurrencies then, especially non proof-of-work ones which align towards Mozilla's climate change goals, since I and many others said before [0], there are cryptocurrencies that exist that are more eco-friendly than others. So use those ones instead.
Looks like I'm going to watch the outrage on this policy as now they realise that one can accept other cryptocurrencies that are not burning up the planet.
> Mozilla will develop and share a list of cryptocurrencies we accept by the end of Q2 2022.
I can tell you that it will be one of those ones in [0]. It certainly won't be Bitcoin, or Dogecoin.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#8TLDR: > Mozilla will no longer accept 'proof-of-work' cryptocurrencies, which are more energy intensive. > Mozilla will accept 'proof-of-stake' cryptocurrencies, which are less energy intensive. Very unsurprising. So they are still accepting cryptocurrencies then, especially non proof-of-work ones which align towards Mozilla's climate change goals, since I and many others said before [0], there are cryptocurrencies t…
Eventually they will realize those worthless PoS and VC issued tokens do more environmental damage than actually doing work. This anti-work thing is a mental illness. This desire to establish new oligarchies when we were just freeing ourselves is tyrannical.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#9There is a concentrated effort by authoritarians to push proof of stake oligarchical systems. By making up ESG concerns and skewing the narrative to be “using energy is bad, actually”, we weaken our decentralized products. Proof of stake is worthless, no it’s actually negative as it will be the lever the state uses to control cryptocurrency. You can’t find the miner, but you can surely find the stalker and force them…
It seems to me that the state’s power over the physical world gives it a good ability to crack down on consumers of large amounts of electricity if it desires. Whether you’re getting power from the grid, or generating your own through coal, natural gas, solar, hydro, wind etc. you are making a big observable mark on the world if you control a significant amount of hash power. Therefore you require the implicit consent of the state to operate.
On the other hand, a staking whale with good opsec sounds pretty anonymous.
Interested to hear if I’ve got this wrong somehow.
Re: Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy
#10There is a concentrated effort by authoritarians to push proof of stake oligarchical systems. By making up ESG concerns and skewing the narrative to be “using energy is bad, actually”, we weaken our decentralized products. Proof of stake is worthless, no it’s actually negative as it will be the lever the state uses to control cryptocurrency. You can’t find the miner, but you can surely find the stalker and force them…
It seems to me that the state’s power over the physical world gives it a good ability to crack down on consumers of large amounts of electricity if it desires. Whether you’re getting power from the grid, or generating your own through coal, natural gas, solar, hydro, wind etc. you are making a big observable mark on the world if you control a significant amount of hash power. Therefore you require the implicit consen…
I can see why people think this, however, is it easier to use electricity or borrow money from a bank? You don’t need permission to use electricity for specific purposes, you pay for what you use. A loan is entirely at the grace of the Banking stake system. Same analogy.
Someone had to sell you the coins in the first place. Remember all PoS coins were issued on day one by the oligarchs and you live by their wishes when they sell you their coins.
The oligarchs always fear the state taking their stash, they will lie and cheat for the State. PoS is subjective truth. PoW is objective truth, verifiable without trust.