4 ms·

I sympathize, but your problems won't be solved by cryptocurrencies. Sure, those might patch things over, but systemic change is needed, or it'll be a never-end

by gspr 5y ago

I sympathize, but your problems won't be solved by cryptocurrencies. Sure, those might patch things over, but systemic change is needed, or it'll be a never-ending series of such patches.

lezojeda 5y ago
I completely agree. Just wanted to point out our situation (which may be repeated across the globe in some other countries with corrupt governments as ours). I get the feeling that sometimes people from the first world believe bitcoin & ethereum and other currencies are only used for financial speculation but we've found a pragmatic use for them due to our conditions.
ipaddr 5y ago
Cryto is that systemic change.
- gspr 5y ago
  Then I'd argue it's bad systemic change.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 5y ago
Systemic changes take decades, and that's if you have the power, which in most of those cases people don't. But they have to keep on living in the meantime.
- gspr 5y ago
  And that is understandable. But how does one leap from this fact to excusing a non-profit in a country without the underlying problem doing the same?
  - int_19h 5y ago
    I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. Just to clear something up: I'm not actually all that bullish on existing cryptocoins myself - Bitcoin clearly has many problems, and it's not just energy wastefulness. What I'm interested in is radical political and economic decentralization in general, from an extreme left libertarian perspective. Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have.
    - gspr 5y ago
      > I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. I'm inclined to agree. > But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. I agree. But the discussion is about Mozilla embracing cryptocurrencies. The fact that there are parts of the world where cryptocurrencies might be an evil that helps someone locally doesn't mean that Mozilla has to embrace that evil. Mozilla is not operating under the adverse conditions that may rightfully incline someone towards cryptocurrencies. > FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. I think it's entirely reasonable to be upset that an important organization does PR stunts. > Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. Decentralized flow of money is one thing. A decentralized supply is another. To me, the latter is giving up on society. Because some governments are evil, we throw out the whole concept of a benign government serving the people – i.e. a well-organized society. > But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have. Perhaps. But it doesn't excuse Mozilla jumping on it. If someone from Venezuela relies on Bitcoin and wants to donate the Mozilla, and Mozilla only accepts donations in fiat currencies, what's the problem? That person will just buy fiat currencies with their Bitcoin, and donate them to Mozilla. There's no reason Mozilla has to start embracing Bitcoin!

by gspr 5y ago

I sympathize, but your problems won't be solved by cryptocurrencies. Sure, those might patch things over, but systemic change is needed, or it'll be a never-ending series of such patches.

lezojeda 5y ago

I completely agree. Just wanted to point out our situation (which may be repeated across the globe in some other countries with corrupt governments as ours). I get the feeling that sometimes people from the first world believe bitcoin & ethereum and other currencies are only used for financial speculation but we've found a pragmatic use for them due to our conditions.

ipaddr 5y ago

Cryto is that systemic change.

gspr 5y ago
Then I'd argue it's bad systemic change.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

int_19h 5y ago

Systemic changes take decades, and that's if you have the power, which in most of those cases people don't. But they have to keep on living in the meantime.

gspr 5y ago
And that is understandable. But how does one leap from this fact to excusing a non-profit in a country without the underlying problem doing the same?
- int_19h 5y ago
  I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. Just to clear something up: I'm not actually all that bullish on existing cryptocoins myself - Bitcoin clearly has many problems, and it's not just energy wastefulness. What I'm interested in is radical political and economic decentralization in general, from an extreme left libertarian perspective. Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have.
  - gspr 5y ago
    > I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. I'm inclined to agree. > But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. I agree. But the discussion is about Mozilla embracing cryptocurrencies. The fact that there are parts of the world where cryptocurrencies might be an evil that helps someone locally doesn't mean that Mozilla has to embrace that evil. Mozilla is not operating under the adverse conditions that may rightfully incline someone towards cryptocurrencies. > FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. I think it's entirely reasonable to be upset that an important organization does PR stunts. > Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. Decentralized flow of money is one thing. A decentralized supply is another. To me, the latter is giving up on society. Because some governments are evil, we throw out the whole concept of a benign government serving the people – i.e. a well-organized society. > But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have. Perhaps. But it doesn't excuse Mozilla jumping on it. If someone from Venezuela relies on Bitcoin and wants to donate the Mozilla, and Mozilla only accepts donations in fiat currencies, what's the problem? That person will just buy fiat currencies with their Bitcoin, and donate them to Mozilla. There's no reason Mozilla has to start embracing Bitcoin!