5 ms·

Title as it stands right now ("Hetzner bans running Ethereum PoS nodes") is incorrect. Hetzner disallows running any software related to any cryptocurrencies, s

Title as it stands right now ("Hetzner bans running Ethereum PoS nodes") is incorrect. Hetzner disallows running any software related to any cryptocurrencies, so be it mining, trading, storage of blockchain data for analysis, operating a node (mining/staking/farming/whatever). It doesn't seem to be specific to Ethereum (PoS or PoW) but generally about any sort of software that interacts with cryptocurrencies (or data coming from cryptocurrencies).

latchkey 4y ago
A bit more context as to why the title is absolutely correct. https://twitter.com/Hetzner_Online/status/1563083561975984130 https://twitter.com/Hetzner_Online/status/156308356197598413...
- capableweb 4y ago
  That tweet links to https://old.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/wucxs4/is_it_allowed_to_run_a_crypto_block_chain_node/ilfoj8u/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/wucxs4/is_it_allow... which says: > Using our products for any application related to mining, even remotely related, is not permitted. This includes Ethereum. It includes proof of stake and proof of work and related applications. It includes trading. It is true for all of our products, except colocation. Even if you just run one node, we consider it a violation of our ToS. That context just shows the title is incorrect, because it's not specifically about Ethereum, and not specifically about PoS. It includes those, but also includes any other cryptocurrencies, and any other proof-of-X methods.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    If you unroll the tweet thread, it starts with a reply from Hetzner to Maggie Love who's talking about ETH PoS. https://twitter.com/maggielove_/status/1562915484659601409 https://twitter.com/maggielove_/status/1562915484659601409 Regardless, talking about the title of the post is bike shedding. Let's move on.
londons_explore 4y ago
And the main reason for doing that is because cryptocurrency related projects have a much much higher rate of fraud - ie. Someone will use a stolen credit card to pay for a bunch of mining compute. If you could convince the CEO that you were not a fraudster, I'm sure the 'no crypto' policy is flexible.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Larger picture is that this is just running some software and now a provider is telling you what you can and cannot run on there. It becomes moral high ground vs. fraud. It is also entertaining that ETH PoS is supposed to be more decentralized in the switch from PoW to PoS... yet here we are with a large provider, that is currently hosting 17% of the network, telling people to go away. I used to work in the porn industry writing software (no, not in front of the camera). Years ago, we were using a web analytics tool that got bought by a Mormon company. We were one of their largest customers. We were told we couldn't use the software any more. This is what we are facing here.
  - dewey 4y ago
    > Larger picture is that this is just running some software and now a provider is telling you what you can and cannot run on there. This has been the case for decades. It used to be "no public IRC, no torrents" or "no adult content". Now it just shifted to crypto. Providers always had terms of service defining which applications are acceptable and which aren't.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      Right... it has been done forever, so that makes it correct.
      - thrill 4y ago
        It's their servers - that's what makes it correct.
sidewndr46 4y ago
Wouldn't this rather ironically constitute a ban on hosting a blog about Hetzner banning cryptocurrency related hosting being a good thing? I mean at some point, isn't everything "cryptocurrency related"? I have the "openssl" package installed on lots of servers, that probably has most of the cryptographic functions needed to fulfill some cryptocurrency functions I imagine.
Aeolun 4y ago
Of course (from the comments in that thread), tons of people are already doing it and not getting banned, so enforcement seems to be a bit lacking.

latchkey 4y ago

A bit more context as to why the title is absolutely correct. https://twitter.com/Hetzner_Online/status/1563083561975984130 https://twitter.com/Hetzner_Online/status/156308356197598413...

capableweb 4y ago
That tweet links to https://old.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/wucxs4/is_it_allowed_to_run_a_crypto_block_chain_node/ilfoj8u/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/hetzner/comments/wucxs4/is_it_allow... which says: > Using our products for any application related to mining, even remotely related, is not permitted. This includes Ethereum. It includes proof of stake and proof of work and related applications. It includes trading. It is true for all of our products, except colocation. Even if you just run one node, we consider it a violation of our ToS. That context just shows the title is incorrect, because it's not specifically about Ethereum, and not specifically about PoS. It includes those, but also includes any other cryptocurrencies, and any other proof-of-X methods.
- latchkey 4y ago
  If you unroll the tweet thread, it starts with a reply from Hetzner to Maggie Love who's talking about ETH PoS. https://twitter.com/maggielove_/status/1562915484659601409 https://twitter.com/maggielove_/status/1562915484659601409 Regardless, talking about the title of the post is bike shedding. Let's move on.

londons_explore 4y ago

And the main reason for doing that is because cryptocurrency related projects have a much much higher rate of fraud - ie. Someone will use a stolen credit card to pay for a bunch of mining compute. If you could convince the CEO that you were not a fraudster, I'm sure the 'no crypto' policy is flexible.

latchkey 4y ago
Larger picture is that this is just running some software and now a provider is telling you what you can and cannot run on there. It becomes moral high ground vs. fraud. It is also entertaining that ETH PoS is supposed to be more decentralized in the switch from PoW to PoS... yet here we are with a large provider, that is currently hosting 17% of the network, telling people to go away. I used to work in the porn industry writing software (no, not in front of the camera). Years ago, we were using a web analytics tool that got bought by a Mormon company. We were one of their largest customers. We were told we couldn't use the software any more. This is what we are facing here.
- dewey 4y ago
  > Larger picture is that this is just running some software and now a provider is telling you what you can and cannot run on there. This has been the case for decades. It used to be "no public IRC, no torrents" or "no adult content". Now it just shifted to crypto. Providers always had terms of service defining which applications are acceptable and which aren't.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Right... it has been done forever, so that makes it correct.
    - thrill 4y ago
      It's their servers - that's what makes it correct.

sidewndr46 4y ago

Wouldn't this rather ironically constitute a ban on hosting a blog about Hetzner banning cryptocurrency related hosting being a good thing? I mean at some point, isn't everything "cryptocurrency related"? I have the "openssl" package installed on lots of servers, that probably has most of the cryptographic functions needed to fulfill some cryptocurrency functions I imagine.

Aeolun 4y ago

Of course (from the comments in that thread), tons of people are already doing it and not getting banned, so enforcement seems to be a bit lacking.