5 ms·

I find many of the replies here fascinating. On one hand whenever there is talk about government regulating some industry or actor a large portion of commente

I find many of the replies here fascinating. On one hand whenever there is talk about government regulating some industry or actor a large portion of commenter here reply that if you don't agree with the practice don't use them, no regulation needed. Now an organisation does exactly that, they decide that they don't want to use a "service" that they ethically disagree with, and lots of replies call it pointless virtue signalling. So how should people/organisations act when they disagree with certain practices/actors?

JulianMorrison 5y ago
It's disingenuous arguing. Free association for me, no cancelling for you, amounts to a plea for a get-out-of-Coventry-free card.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AxeVice 5y ago
People like to be contrarian, or at least the replies a thread receives will mostly be from people who disagree with the thread's premise.
sparkie 5y ago
It is pointless virtue signalling because the primary argument for ending bitcoin donations is about energy usage, but the effect of ending bitcoin donations will have precisely zero impact on the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network. This isn't the same as when you boycott a company's products and it causes a loss of sales.
- lxgr 5y ago
  Accepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect). Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining. It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.
  - sparkie 5y ago
    The majority of miner revenue is a subsidy given via inflation. It's effectively paid for by all bitcoin holders, and is decoupled from usage and fees. Fewer people transacting is going to make no difference. Miners aren't going to suddenly think "Oh, perhaps I should mine less now that these clowns at Wikimedia aren't taking donations."
    - lxgr 5y ago
      This is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.
      - sparkie 5y ago
        Correct, but miners are operating on the assumption of revenue now, and not 8 or 12 years down the line when transaction fees eventually exceed the block subsidy. By that time, the network effect will be so large that Wikimedia will not be able to just ignore it to pacify a small group of whining overgrown children.
xtracto 5y ago
I dont think they really care about the environment. If they did, they would accept PoS or similar environmentally friendly cryptos. That way they would be promoting their use instead of the old inefficient PoW ones.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Maybe they prefer currencies that ought be under democratic control, rather than crypto scheme that are designed to be be controlled politically (which includes democratically).
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    This is an interesting line of thought. Which currency is more democratic: USD, or BTC/ETH? With ETH for example, I can create a new EIP, and if the majority of users agree with it, the currency can evolve. For example see EIP-1559 adoption despite it going against miners best interests, or even EIP-721 which has led to profound changes in the way the network is now used. This is pretty much "majority rule" but obviously it is being driven primarily by developers and those with the technical knowledge needed to propose and shape these EIPs. On the other hand, with USD (or any state currency) I have nearly zero chance of influencing its policy, inflation, and so on. The only option I have is to write to politicians and hope they take it further. If the politicians (governing body) in place do not currently agree with this policy despite a large (user) backlash, there is no way for users to "fork" the USD, and so they are forced to adopt whichever decisions are made by their current government and policy makers. This is especially true if you live outside the US (as I do), but are still required to use USD by virtue of working with US clients, US customers, and primarily USD-based payment systems (e.g. as Wikimedia is stepping closer toward with this change). This is mostly just presented as a thought experiment in response to the idea that USD is far more democratic than an open source + decentralized currency.
    - gibrown 5y ago
      Agree that this is an interesting line of discussion. I think you missed a few options of why USD are more democratic. You can also: - run for office - organize people politically The open source point is important, but any individual crypto seems very hard to change once it is in place. Feels like it assumes you can predict how it will be used and what the consequences will be. The law isn’t easy to change but there is a clearly defined abs democratic process for doing so (assuming you are in a democracy).
jdrc 5y ago
I think you made a great argument, if you don't agree with cryptocurrency, stop using wikipedia.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

It's disingenuous arguing. Free association for me, no cancelling for you, amounts to a plea for a get-out-of-Coventry-free card.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AxeVice 5y ago

People like to be contrarian, or at least the replies a thread receives will mostly be from people who disagree with the thread's premise.

sparkie 5y ago

It is pointless virtue signalling because the primary argument for ending bitcoin donations is about energy usage, but the effect of ending bitcoin donations will have precisely zero impact on the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network. This isn't the same as when you boycott a company's products and it causes a loss of sales.

lxgr 5y ago
Accepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect). Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining. It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.
- sparkie 5y ago
  The majority of miner revenue is a subsidy given via inflation. It's effectively paid for by all bitcoin holders, and is decoupled from usage and fees. Fewer people transacting is going to make no difference. Miners aren't going to suddenly think "Oh, perhaps I should mine less now that these clowns at Wikimedia aren't taking donations."
  - lxgr 5y ago
    This is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.
    - sparkie 5y ago
      Correct, but miners are operating on the assumption of revenue now, and not 8 or 12 years down the line when transaction fees eventually exceed the block subsidy. By that time, the network effect will be so large that Wikimedia will not be able to just ignore it to pacify a small group of whining overgrown children.

xtracto 5y ago

I dont think they really care about the environment. If they did, they would accept PoS or similar environmentally friendly cryptos. That way they would be promoting their use instead of the old inefficient PoW ones.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Maybe they prefer currencies that ought be under democratic control, rather than crypto scheme that are designed to be be controlled politically (which includes democratically).
- mattdesl 5y ago
  This is an interesting line of thought. Which currency is more democratic: USD, or BTC/ETH? With ETH for example, I can create a new EIP, and if the majority of users agree with it, the currency can evolve. For example see EIP-1559 adoption despite it going against miners best interests, or even EIP-721 which has led to profound changes in the way the network is now used. This is pretty much "majority rule" but obviously it is being driven primarily by developers and those with the technical knowledge needed to propose and shape these EIPs. On the other hand, with USD (or any state currency) I have nearly zero chance of influencing its policy, inflation, and so on. The only option I have is to write to politicians and hope they take it further. If the politicians (governing body) in place do not currently agree with this policy despite a large (user) backlash, there is no way for users to "fork" the USD, and so they are forced to adopt whichever decisions are made by their current government and policy makers. This is especially true if you live outside the US (as I do), but are still required to use USD by virtue of working with US clients, US customers, and primarily USD-based payment systems (e.g. as Wikimedia is stepping closer toward with this change). This is mostly just presented as a thought experiment in response to the idea that USD is far more democratic than an open source + decentralized currency.
  - gibrown 5y ago
    Agree that this is an interesting line of discussion. I think you missed a few options of why USD are more democratic. You can also: - run for office - organize people politically The open source point is important, but any individual crypto seems very hard to change once it is in place. Feels like it assumes you can predict how it will be used and what the consequences will be. The law isn’t easy to change but there is a clearly defined abs democratic process for doing so (assuming you are in a democracy).

jdrc 5y ago

I think you made a great argument, if you don't agree with cryptocurrency, stop using wikipedia.