10 ms·

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 i

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 to mention damaging to the environment. What is really happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all, rather just holding crypto coins and hoping they'll go up and speculating on the price.

quartesixte 5y ago
But what if Wikpedia donor pool also is made up mostly of those who do not wish to use cryptos to donate?
garbagetime 5y ago
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.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  > There just isn't the incentive to use cryptocurrency to donate to Wikipedia. Sure there is. A lot of people have lots of value tied up in crypto, a very liquid asset. It’s also easy to send. I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine, but I know how to donate to Ukraine organizations that accept crypto. If crypto is a small part of your revenue stream, maybe it’s because you haven’t nurtured it as a donation channel.
  - unicornmama 5y ago
    > I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine You go to your bank and ask them to start a wire transfer. The recipient’s bank will provide the instructions. You can even do this entirely online.
    - devoutsalsa 5y ago
      My physical bank is in a different country. As a crypto enthusiast, I’m obligated to migrate to a remote tax haven full of like minded nut jobs.
      - unicornmama 5y ago
        So you chose to unbank yourself :) I have transacted millions in crypto and wire transfers. Banking with crypto is like the 1970s - exorbitant fees. To do anything useful with it I have to offramp to fiat which drum rolls ends with a wire transfer.
        devoutsalsa 5y ago
        You said "go to your bank". I was thinking "walk into a bank branch" XD I don't think I've ever wired money in my life. I guess I never needed to. And the few occasions I needed to send some money internationally, I've simply sent crypto, used Western Union, or something like PayPal or Revolut.
        unicornmama 5y ago
        Wiring isn’t that bad, you need to fill in some fields about the recipient account details and receiving bank. The annoying bit is that banks have inconsistent web portals with mediocre UX. So sometimes it can be frustrating to figure out how to enter the information. I’ll admit that the crypto UX is faster with just entering a destination wallet address. It would be good if banks could adopt QR codes to provide similar experienfe. Sometimes you get charged a fee, but many institutions will waive that (e.g. Schwab) if your balance is high enough.
        cycomanic 5y ago
        I find that mind-boggling. How did/do you pay rent? How do you get paid? Coming from Europe people use wiretransfers for pretty much everything over e.g. credit cards (obviously there are differences between countries but wire transfers are very common everywhere).
  - topranks 5y ago
    Doesn’t make sense really though. How do these people buy groceries or pay regular bills? Most places don’t accept crypto for payments. If and when the whole world has moved to crypto payments I’m sure they’ll review it again. Until then the argument there are lots of people who have crypto and have not heard of / don’t know how to use a Visa card stretches credulity.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  If the speculation in crypto is being fueled by crypto chasing non-fiat exits (as you imply wrt gambling payments), then isn't it silly to cut off that tap? Value is fungible, it shouldn't matter whether it's a Wikipedia donation or a "gambling payment".
- jeltz 5y ago
  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.
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    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.
vmception 5y ago
Charitable giving with crypto is just getting off the ground As tax considerations with crypto are just getting off the ground So you basically have this wide polar extreme of: A) People using crypto and thinking there are no taxes B) And entrepreneurs moving their premines to their own non-profits for massive tax breaks and exemption leaving existing non-profits just waiting People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them and more become loaded with appreciated assets or just have an inventory of crypto at all times People close to B) are also loaded with assets and more likely to contribute to other non profits Its better for a non profit to keep the door open and have the payment rails available. Large contributions could happen at any time. At the end of the day, money talks, pretty much all non profits figure it out when a donor wants to donate any large asset, including in crypto
- timerol 5y ago
  > As tax considerations with crypto are just getting off the ground This is very not true. Buying and selling anything has very clear tax implications. It's more that enforcement is slow, and people are willingly breaking the law because of it. Here's a good Twitter conversation explaining the situation: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1501707876888240131 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1501707876888240131 > I think the issue is mostly that the industry’s core request is “Can we have an outright exemption from securities regulation?”, the regulators say “Absolutely not you must follow the law.”, industry follows with “How high is this on your enforcement priority list?”, “Not very.” > And so industry complains “My my this all seems so ambiguous and look at all these similar projects which never get enforcement actions. I wish we had Regulatory Clarity (TM).”
  - vmception 5y ago
    > This is very not true. Buying and selling anything has very clear tax implications. I was saying that crypto users willing to consider tax and more complex tax is just getting off the ground, not that the law itself ever ignored them I think the rest of my post makes that clear > People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them (the reality that tax always applied) but I can see how it doesn't, especially if you are expecting a crypto tax / regulation protestor
jdrc 5y ago
So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Removing the payment method simplifies the donations system. And since it’s not generating any value, it’s not worth keeping.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological
    - aaronbrethorst 5y ago
      Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
      - 5y ago
mardifoufs 5y ago
Just for context, that's still 140 00$
- jdrc 5y ago
  > In the last financial year we received $130,100.94 worth of donations in cryptocurrencies.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    At that take, I'm not sure if it covers the engineering effort to maintain it, accounting and legal work to handle it, and opportunity cost of whatever else they could be doing.
    - jdrc 5y ago
      that was nowhere near the justification given
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Doesn’t need to be. At most it’s a reason for Wikimedia to not care enough to say ‘no’ to the RfC.
    - gjs278 5y ago
flotzam 5y ago
Wikipedia used BitPay, the most widely loathed of all cryptocurrency payment processors - https://debitpay.directory/anti-bitcoin/ https://debitpay.directory/anti-bitcoin/ - and required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data: https://bitpay.com/464448/donate https://bitpay.com/464448/donate It's a high friction, culture-clashing payment flow. I certainly noped out of that form real fast. For comparison: https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/ https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/ And another campaign on The Giving Block, an anonymity friendly donation payment processor: https://thegivingblock.com/campaigns/ukraine-emergency-response-fund/ https://thegivingblock.com/campaigns/ukraine-emergency-respo...
- numeri 5y ago
  This is the real reason they received so few donations. I've only ever donated to them through Brave's Attention Tokens [1], so I never realized they use BitPay, but it really is intrusive. 1. I wonder if they'll keep this enabled or not?
  - gwd 5y ago
    > 1. I wonder if they'll keep this enabled or not? I was wondering the same thing -- hopefully they will, as I'd like to see that model succeed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kuschku 5y ago
  > required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data Yes, that’s known as KYC laws, which are required if you’re a payment processor of any kind.
  - flotzam 5y ago
    Seems more like preemptive overcompliance. Plenty of reputable charities accept anonymous donations just fine, whether it's cryptocurrency or cash by mail.
once_inc 5y ago
If they run a lightning wallet and open it for donations, they'd see that percentage rise dramatically at virtually no cost.
- Aachen 5y ago
  How does that make a difference? As I understood it, every individual would still have to do a regular on-chain transaction, it's only if you later realize you actually wanted to donate more than you did that this could be useful because then you avoid the full transaction fee. Or if you let it run over years without settling and do a yearly donation, though I'm not clear on the implications there. Or, if the on-chain parties are just Wikipedia and a few big payment service providers to avoid that everyone has to do the setup individually, you've basically reinvented paypal credits or, less evil-ly, liberapay.
  - sparkie 5y ago
    I think you misunderstand the Network part of the Lightning Network. It is not necessary for users to have a direct payment channel to Wikimedia in order to donate to them. They just need to have an active channel to anybody in the network who is capable of routing a payment request to Wikimedia's node. The assumption is that Lightning users already have active open channels to other nodes in the network, and so making a new donation to Wikimedia would not require any additional channel opening, and no on-chain activity.
    - Aachen 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying that! Now that you mention it, I remember reading that but forgot it again somehow. That does (positively) change how well this can work without compromising the whole idea behind bitcoin.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> nobody is using it for payments at all, rather just holding crypto coins and hoping they'll go up The above statement is false. I prefer to use cash and crypto to prevent my expenses from being tracked (although I absolutely am not avoiding any taxes). I pay cash, not crypto when I want weed (sadly it's still illegal in most of the places). I rarely hold more than $100 worth so don't care about where is the rate going. I presume I'm not unique.
koonsolo 5y ago
Ukraine received millions of dollars of donations in cryptocurrency. So your last statement is not really correct.
- DennisP 5y ago
  As of March 11, close to $100 million. According to a deputy minister in Ukraine: > “In a situation like this, where the national bank is not fully operating, crypto is helping to perform fast transfers, to make it very quick and get results almost immediately.” NYTimes: https://archive.ph/3HVqU# https://archive.ph/3HVqU#
- thehappypm 5y ago
  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.
  - ea550ff70a 5y ago
    > behind as a means for illegal activities which are less than 1% of the yearly transaction volume according to Chainalysis lol
    - rvz 5y ago
      On top of that you can trace all the transactions on the chain and see where everything is going publicly. Useful to catch criminals attempting to liquidate on to an exchange. Good luck cashing out and not getting caught.
      - koonsolo 5y ago
        Monero fixed that a long time ago already.
        rvz 5y ago
        That's right. Perhaps that's why proposed regulations are cracking down on banning and delisting Monero (and other privacy coins) on exchanges. [0] [1] [0] https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-votes-on-privacy-busting-crypto-rules-industry-rails-against-proposals/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-vot... [1] https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/kraken-to-delist-monero-for-uk-customers-by-the-end-of-november-2685869 https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/kraken-to...
AlexAltea 5y ago
> What is really happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all [Citation needed] Over the past years I've been able to book flights, shop hardware, get hotels and rental cars, renew my domain, pay for my server with cryptocurrencies.
- missingdays 5y ago
  So, you are 0.08%
  - logicchains 5y ago
    The rights of minorities don't matter?
    - raziel2p 5y ago
      paying in a currency/asset of your choice is no one's right. I have a bunch of foreign currency in cash lying around which I cannot use where I live without exchanging it, I guess that makes me a minority as well - should I make a fuss about my european country of residence not accepting a central american currency?
    - cuteboy19 5y ago
      Paying with x thing was never a right to begin with
  - ea550ff70a 5y ago
    No problem. Don't cry later with annoying banners crying for donations in order to keep the site's operations running.
- namdnay 5y ago
  book flights with crypto? which airline or travel agency accepts crypto? I don't see how it could work with so much volatility. You could buy fully modifiable/refundable first class tickets and use them as free options to bet on the crypto in question
superkuh 5y ago
Oh. Hi. I guess I'm named nobody. I've just been nobodying for many years. But nobody pays attention to me because they're all fascinated/horrified with what the finance bros are doing off chain. No one likes to read about some dude quietly using bitcoin to pay for things like VPSes, computer hardware (newegg), etc, the last 7 years. It's not as exciting so I don't exist.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Newegg does not accept Bitcoin for payment. They will allow you to pay via an intermediary who liquidates your Bitcoin and pays Newegg in dollars

quartesixte 5y ago

But what if Wikpedia donor pool also is made up mostly of those who do not wish to use cryptos to donate?

garbagetime 5y ago

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.

devoutsalsa 5y ago
> There just isn't the incentive to use cryptocurrency to donate to Wikipedia. Sure there is. A lot of people have lots of value tied up in crypto, a very liquid asset. It’s also easy to send. I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine, but I know how to donate to Ukraine organizations that accept crypto. If crypto is a small part of your revenue stream, maybe it’s because you haven’t nurtured it as a donation channel.
- unicornmama 5y ago
  > I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine You go to your bank and ask them to start a wire transfer. The recipient’s bank will provide the instructions. You can even do this entirely online.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    My physical bank is in a different country. As a crypto enthusiast, I’m obligated to migrate to a remote tax haven full of like minded nut jobs.
    - unicornmama 5y ago
      So you chose to unbank yourself :) I have transacted millions in crypto and wire transfers. Banking with crypto is like the 1970s - exorbitant fees. To do anything useful with it I have to offramp to fiat which drum rolls ends with a wire transfer.
      - devoutsalsa 5y ago
        You said "go to your bank". I was thinking "walk into a bank branch" XD I don't think I've ever wired money in my life. I guess I never needed to. And the few occasions I needed to send some money internationally, I've simply sent crypto, used Western Union, or something like PayPal or Revolut.
        unicornmama 5y ago
        Wiring isn’t that bad, you need to fill in some fields about the recipient account details and receiving bank. The annoying bit is that banks have inconsistent web portals with mediocre UX. So sometimes it can be frustrating to figure out how to enter the information. I’ll admit that the crypto UX is faster with just entering a destination wallet address. It would be good if banks could adopt QR codes to provide similar experienfe. Sometimes you get charged a fee, but many institutions will waive that (e.g. Schwab) if your balance is high enough.
        cycomanic 5y ago
        I find that mind-boggling. How did/do you pay rent? How do you get paid? Coming from Europe people use wiretransfers for pretty much everything over e.g. credit cards (obviously there are differences between countries but wire transfers are very common everywhere).
- topranks 5y ago
  Doesn’t make sense really though. How do these people buy groceries or pay regular bills? Most places don’t accept crypto for payments. If and when the whole world has moved to crypto payments I’m sure they’ll review it again. Until then the argument there are lots of people who have crypto and have not heard of / don’t know how to use a Visa card stretches credulity.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
If the speculation in crypto is being fueled by crypto chasing non-fiat exits (as you imply wrt gambling payments), then isn't it silly to cut off that tap? Value is fungible, it shouldn't matter whether it's a Wikipedia donation or a "gambling payment".
jeltz 5y ago
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.
- garbagetime 5y ago
  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.

vmception 5y ago

Charitable giving with crypto is just getting off the ground As tax considerations with crypto are just getting off the ground So you basically have this wide polar extreme of: A) People using crypto and thinking there are no taxes B) And entrepreneurs moving their premines to their own non-profits for massive tax breaks and exemption leaving existing non-profits just waiting People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them and more become loaded with appreciated assets or just have an inventory of crypto at all times People close to B) are also loaded with assets and more likely to contribute to other non profits Its better for a non profit to keep the door open and have the payment rails available. Large contributions could happen at any time. At the end of the day, money talks, pretty much all non profits figure it out when a donor wants to donate any large asset, including in crypto

timerol 5y ago
> As tax considerations with crypto are just getting off the ground This is very not true. Buying and selling anything has very clear tax implications. It's more that enforcement is slow, and people are willingly breaking the law because of it. Here's a good Twitter conversation explaining the situation: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1501707876888240131 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1501707876888240131 > I think the issue is mostly that the industry’s core request is “Can we have an outright exemption from securities regulation?”, the regulators say “Absolutely not you must follow the law.”, industry follows with “How high is this on your enforcement priority list?”, “Not very.” > And so industry complains “My my this all seems so ambiguous and look at all these similar projects which never get enforcement actions. I wish we had Regulatory Clarity (TM).”
- vmception 5y ago
  > This is very not true. Buying and selling anything has very clear tax implications. I was saying that crypto users willing to consider tax and more complex tax is just getting off the ground, not that the law itself ever ignored them I think the rest of my post makes that clear > People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them (the reality that tax always applied) but I can see how it doesn't, especially if you are expecting a crypto tax / regulation protestor

jdrc 5y ago

So this is not great news at all, a totally inconsequential and pointless move for signaling virtue (look at the arguments given), which is contrary to wikipedia's aim to be neutral

Gigachad 5y ago
Removing the payment method simplifies the donations system. And since it’s not generating any value, it’s not worth keeping.
- jdrc 5y ago
  that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological
  - aaronbrethorst 5y ago
    Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
    - 5y ago

mardifoufs 5y ago

Just for context, that's still 140 00$

jdrc 5y ago
> In the last financial year we received $130,100.94 worth of donations in cryptocurrencies.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  At that take, I'm not sure if it covers the engineering effort to maintain it, accounting and legal work to handle it, and opportunity cost of whatever else they could be doing.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    that was nowhere near the justification given
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Doesn’t need to be. At most it’s a reason for Wikimedia to not care enough to say ‘no’ to the RfC.
  - gjs278 5y ago

flotzam 5y ago

Wikipedia used BitPay, the most widely loathed of all cryptocurrency payment processors - https://debitpay.directory/anti-bitcoin/ https://debitpay.directory/anti-bitcoin/ - and required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data: https://bitpay.com/464448/donate https://bitpay.com/464448/donate It's a high friction, culture-clashing payment flow. I certainly noped out of that form real fast. For comparison: https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/ https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/ And another campaign on The Giving Block, an anonymity friendly donation payment processor: https://thegivingblock.com/campaigns/ukraine-emergency-response-fund/ https://thegivingblock.com/campaigns/ukraine-emergency-respo...

numeri 5y ago
This is the real reason they received so few donations. I've only ever donated to them through Brave's Attention Tokens [1], so I never realized they use BitPay, but it really is intrusive. 1. I wonder if they'll keep this enabled or not?
- gwd 5y ago
  > 1. I wonder if they'll keep this enabled or not? I was wondering the same thing -- hopefully they will, as I'd like to see that model succeed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kuschku 5y ago
> required prospective donors to provide an obscene amount of personal data Yes, that’s known as KYC laws, which are required if you’re a payment processor of any kind.
- flotzam 5y ago
  Seems more like preemptive overcompliance. Plenty of reputable charities accept anonymous donations just fine, whether it's cryptocurrency or cash by mail.

once_inc 5y ago

If they run a lightning wallet and open it for donations, they'd see that percentage rise dramatically at virtually no cost.

Aachen 5y ago
How does that make a difference? As I understood it, every individual would still have to do a regular on-chain transaction, it's only if you later realize you actually wanted to donate more than you did that this could be useful because then you avoid the full transaction fee. Or if you let it run over years without settling and do a yearly donation, though I'm not clear on the implications there. Or, if the on-chain parties are just Wikipedia and a few big payment service providers to avoid that everyone has to do the setup individually, you've basically reinvented paypal credits or, less evil-ly, liberapay.
- sparkie 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand the Network part of the Lightning Network. It is not necessary for users to have a direct payment channel to Wikimedia in order to donate to them. They just need to have an active channel to anybody in the network who is capable of routing a payment request to Wikimedia's node. The assumption is that Lightning users already have active open channels to other nodes in the network, and so making a new donation to Wikimedia would not require any additional channel opening, and no on-chain activity.
  - Aachen 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying that! Now that you mention it, I remember reading that but forgot it again somehow. That does (positively) change how well this can work without compromising the whole idea behind bitcoin.

qwerty456127 5y ago

> nobody is using it for payments at all, rather just holding crypto coins and hoping they'll go up The above statement is false. I prefer to use cash and crypto to prevent my expenses from being tracked (although I absolutely am not avoiding any taxes). I pay cash, not crypto when I want weed (sadly it's still illegal in most of the places). I rarely hold more than $100 worth so don't care about where is the rate going. I presume I'm not unique.

koonsolo 5y ago

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

DennisP 5y ago
As of March 11, close to $100 million. According to a deputy minister in Ukraine: > “In a situation like this, where the national bank is not fully operating, crypto is helping to perform fast transfers, to make it very quick and get results almost immediately.” NYTimes: https://archive.ph/3HVqU# https://archive.ph/3HVqU#
thehappypm 5y ago
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.
- ea550ff70a 5y ago
  > behind as a means for illegal activities which are less than 1% of the yearly transaction volume according to Chainalysis lol
  - rvz 5y ago
    On top of that you can trace all the transactions on the chain and see where everything is going publicly. Useful to catch criminals attempting to liquidate on to an exchange. Good luck cashing out and not getting caught.
    - koonsolo 5y ago
      Monero fixed that a long time ago already.
      - rvz 5y ago
        That's right. Perhaps that's why proposed regulations are cracking down on banning and delisting Monero (and other privacy coins) on exchanges. [0] [1] [0] https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-votes-on-privacy-busting-crypto-rules-industry-rails-against-proposals/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-vot... [1] https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/kraken-to-delist-monero-for-uk-customers-by-the-end-of-november-2685869 https://www.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/kraken-to...

AlexAltea 5y ago

> What is really happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all [Citation needed] Over the past years I've been able to book flights, shop hardware, get hotels and rental cars, renew my domain, pay for my server with cryptocurrencies.

missingdays 5y ago
So, you are 0.08%
- logicchains 5y ago
  The rights of minorities don't matter?
  - raziel2p 5y ago
    paying in a currency/asset of your choice is no one's right. I have a bunch of foreign currency in cash lying around which I cannot use where I live without exchanging it, I guess that makes me a minority as well - should I make a fuss about my european country of residence not accepting a central american currency?
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    Paying with x thing was never a right to begin with
- ea550ff70a 5y ago
  No problem. Don't cry later with annoying banners crying for donations in order to keep the site's operations running.
namdnay 5y ago
book flights with crypto? which airline or travel agency accepts crypto? I don't see how it could work with so much volatility. You could buy fully modifiable/refundable first class tickets and use them as free options to bet on the crypto in question

superkuh 5y ago

Oh. Hi. I guess I'm named nobody. I've just been nobodying for many years. But nobody pays attention to me because they're all fascinated/horrified with what the finance bros are doing off chain. No one likes to read about some dude quietly using bitcoin to pay for things like VPSes, computer hardware (newegg), etc, the last 7 years. It's not as exciting so I don't exist.

xadhominemx 5y ago
Newegg does not accept Bitcoin for payment. They will allow you to pay via an intermediary who liquidates your Bitcoin and pays Newegg in dollars