4 ms·

> 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

by bb88 5y ago

> 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 not accept it.

mandmandam 5y ago
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 them do it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zyuiop 5y ago
  Yes but Wikipedia only accepted BTC, BCC and ETH anyway. Maybe one day if what you say becomes true they will go back and accept these fancy new currencies.
- psychoslave 5y ago
  Or maybe you don’t want to accept water from providers that are well known to have a very negative impact on environment in the first place. Your baby deserve that you don’t tacitly turn a blind eye to well known side impact, all the more when there no lack of clean water provider.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > Man, there's a baby in that bathwater It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!" Well, * no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a fixed belief * what if there is no baby, only bathwater? And where does the burden of proof that there is a baby or not, lie?
  - denkmoon 5y ago
    Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving. I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world. Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding? You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.
      - gnomewascool 5y ago
        I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels. It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches. It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere. > It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles And many are in fact drawing the line at that. > I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.
    - j16sdiz 5y ago
      Wikimedia Foundation have hundreds of million of dollars. Nothing need saving See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
- iso1631 5y ago
  > There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized Name two?
  - preisschild 5y ago
    Monero and Monero related projects, like Haveno. Its probably one of the most used cryptocurrencies for normal transactions, as most darkweb marketplaces use it.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > normal transactions ... darkweb marketplaces For some abnormal definition of "normal", ok.
      - mhitza 5y ago
        Obviously he/she meant normal in terms of exchange for goods and services.
    - ben-schaaf 5y ago
      The highest transaction fee in the last 100 transactions has been 4c. That's not a lot but very far from "feeless". Monero mines blocks every 2 minutes; hardly "instant". A full confirmation takes ~20 minutes. Source: https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take
      - superkuh 5y ago
        As opposed to a normal credit card transaction which takes days.
        replygirl 5y ago
        But not in a practical sense for the user. You don't have to wait 20 minutes for your authorization to clear so you can walk out of Dunkin with your iced coffee
- tromp 5y ago
  Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Not when the majority of supply is distributed in just a few years, or, much worse yet, all at launch in the hands of the founders plus whoever they decided to handout tokens to by whatever publicly unverifiable way.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    > Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Are we speaking relative to fiat here? .... Lol. Besides, there were many attempts at fair distributions, so you're simply wrong there. My favorite, Nano, distributed small amounts to people who solved captchas between 2015 and 2017.
    - tromp 5y ago
      Yes, relative to fiat, since crypto can at best limit the unfairness to that already present in fiat. But so far crypto has created wealth inequality which is way worse than that in fiat. Yes, there have been attempts at fair distribution, but to re-iterate my point above, they would need to spread distribution over a long timespan (gold has been distributed over millenia).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
flotzam 5y ago
>> I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > enough of a reason to not accept it. Not if that's simply another instance of Sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crap"): https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355 https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355
- rapind 5y ago
  I mean, they aren’t going to accept a donation of SlapChop’s either…
  - flotzam 5y ago
    You'd be surprised. Many orgs have a service provider like https://www.careasy.org/ https://www.careasy.org/ on hand to accept junk cars or even boats. Not to mention stocks and other financial instruments. If taking Slap Chops brings in nonzero funds - why not.
- bb88 5y ago
  Here's a counterexample of Sturgeon's law: I mean otherwise, sure, illegal drugs are 90% crap, but wouldn't it be stupid to not accept nickle bags if people wanted to use them for trade? I also have an NFT I'm willing to sell you, I just need 1000ETH. Yes the NFT market is shitty, but 1000ETH is a pittance if you believe in Stugeon's law.

by bb88 5y ago

mandmandam 5y ago

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 them do it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zyuiop 5y ago
Yes but Wikipedia only accepted BTC, BCC and ETH anyway. Maybe one day if what you say becomes true they will go back and accept these fancy new currencies.
psychoslave 5y ago
Or maybe you don’t want to accept water from providers that are well known to have a very negative impact on environment in the first place. Your baby deserve that you don’t tacitly turn a blind eye to well known side impact, all the more when there no lack of clean water provider.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > Man, there's a baby in that bathwater It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!" Well, * no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a fixed belief * what if there is no baby, only bathwater? And where does the burden of proof that there is a baby or not, lie?
- denkmoon 5y ago
  Crypto can overall be a scam (or not, pick your poison), but if it's helping wikimedia get funding then that 'baby' is worth saving. I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world. Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding? You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.
    - gnomewascool 5y ago
      I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels. It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches. It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I don't think that accepting cryptocurrencies is quite equivalent to accepting funds from the Kremlin I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere. > It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles And many are in fact drawing the line at that. > I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.
  - j16sdiz 5y ago
    Wikimedia Foundation have hundreds of million of dollars. Nothing need saving See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
iso1631 5y ago
> There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized Name two?
- preisschild 5y ago
  Monero and Monero related projects, like Haveno. Its probably one of the most used cryptocurrencies for normal transactions, as most darkweb marketplaces use it.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > normal transactions ... darkweb marketplaces For some abnormal definition of "normal", ok.
    - mhitza 5y ago
      Obviously he/she meant normal in terms of exchange for goods and services.
  - ben-schaaf 5y ago
    The highest transaction fee in the last 100 transactions has been 4c. That's not a lot but very far from "feeless". Monero mines blocks every 2 minutes; hardly "instant". A full confirmation takes ~20 minutes. Source: https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take
    - superkuh 5y ago
      As opposed to a normal credit card transaction which takes days.
      - replygirl 5y ago
        But not in a practical sense for the user. You don't have to wait 20 minutes for your authorization to clear so you can walk out of Dunkin with your iced coffee
tromp 5y ago
Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Not when the majority of supply is distributed in just a few years, or, much worse yet, all at launch in the hands of the founders plus whoever they decided to handout tokens to by whatever publicly unverifiable way.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > Nothing in crypto is fairly distributed. Are we speaking relative to fiat here? .... Lol. Besides, there were many attempts at fair distributions, so you're simply wrong there. My favorite, Nano, distributed small amounts to people who solved captchas between 2015 and 2017.
  - tromp 5y ago
    Yes, relative to fiat, since crypto can at best limit the unfairness to that already present in fiat. But so far crypto has created wealth inequality which is way worse than that in fiat. Yes, there have been attempts at fair distribution, but to re-iterate my point above, they would need to spread distribution over a long timespan (gold has been distributed over millenia).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

flotzam 5y ago

>> I think crypto currencies are for the most part a scam > enough of a reason to not accept it. Not if that's simply another instance of Sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crap"): https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355 https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355

rapind 5y ago
I mean, they aren’t going to accept a donation of SlapChop’s either…
- flotzam 5y ago
  You'd be surprised. Many orgs have a service provider like https://www.careasy.org/ https://www.careasy.org/ on hand to accept junk cars or even boats. Not to mention stocks and other financial instruments. If taking Slap Chops brings in nonzero funds - why not.
bb88 5y ago
Here's a counterexample of Sturgeon's law: I mean otherwise, sure, illegal drugs are 90% crap, but wouldn't it be stupid to not accept nickle bags if people wanted to use them for trade? I also have an NFT I'm willing to sell you, I just need 1000ETH. Yes the NFT market is shitty, but 1000ETH is a pittance if you believe in Stugeon's law.