4 ms·

And your 'alternative' is a volatile token backed by nothing, that nobody is interested in (as cited by Pew Research) has properties that exhibits a pyramid sch

And your 'alternative' is a volatile token backed by nothing, that nobody is interested in (as cited by Pew Research) has properties that exhibits a pyramid scheme at best and a ponzi scheme at worst, and doesn't even do recurring payments and it is still slow. If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from. What is being suggested (which is any crypto token) is even worse than Patreon, we just had major price manipulation on Bitcoin which tells you everything you need to know about how unstable this token is that creators will not use. ICYMI there is also Liberapay which I stated earlier that you purposefully glossed over if you don't like Patreon. In any case, any payment system is better than crypto or bitcoin, especially for creators.

dns_snek 3y ago
> And your 'alternative' is a volatile token backed by nothing All that matters is that there are enough people willingly using it to make it worthwhile for the project to accept these donations. Furthermore, it's not "my" alternative, I'm not trying persuade anyone to use, or not to use different avenues of accepting donations. I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why? It comes across like the vegan stereotype of vegans reminding everyone they're vegan and trying to convince them that they should become vegan too. > If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from. You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001.
- colesantiago 3y ago
  > All that matters is that there are enough people willingly using it to make it worthwhile for the project to accept these donations. And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money, this isn't appealing for anyone that wants to accept donations with crypto and is the absolute worst way to do it and is the best way to lose 'money'. You can keep ignoring my stats but people want stability with their money not instability and crypto isn't it. > You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001. Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true, and we are not even counting the exchanges, conversion fees, etc. > I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why? Because the bad heavily outweighs any (alleged) good crypto "has". Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today. If someone gives me $200 I expect $200 in my account. With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2. This doesn't make any sense and will further discourage creators. There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system. > Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001. That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin, hence: > If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    You're just repeating the same disingenuous talking points, as if I'm trying to persuade YOU to use crypto - I'm really not. If those are your conclusions, then you're perfectly entitled to just stay away from it. The only thing I'm really interested in is why you're making it your business to shame projects for accepting crypto donations? Just for completeness sake, before you accuse me of disregarding your points: > And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money Anyone who sees this as a real threat can convert to another currency immediately or in regular intervals, making it a non-issue while still being able to transact using cryptocurrency. > Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true We're talking about fractions of a cent per TX. That's essentially free for all realistic scenarios. All centralized systems carry a 2-50% + fixed ~30c fee. > Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today. Situational. Neither system covers everyone's needs. > With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2 This just doesn't happen in reality. Normal fluctuations happen in both directions just as with any other currency exchange market. > There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system. Blatantly false, the current financial system doesn't have any privacy and is susceptible to government interference, e.g. account freezes. > That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin And that's a shame, but regardless, it's one of the most secure chains (w.r.t. 51% attacks) with ubiquitous support and one of the longest track records. It's a perfectly adequate way to accept donations.
    - colesantiago 3y ago
      Where are the sources backing each of your claims? Since you don't have any I have disregarded and ignored all your spurious points as you have no credible up to date (2020/2023) sources backing them and yet I have.

dns_snek 3y ago

> And your 'alternative' is a volatile token backed by nothing All that matters is that there are enough people willingly using it to make it worthwhile for the project to accept these donations. Furthermore, it's not "my" alternative, I'm not trying persuade anyone to use, or not to use different avenues of accepting donations. I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why? It comes across like the vegan stereotype of vegans reminding everyone they're vegan and trying to convince them that they should become vegan too. > If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from. You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001.

colesantiago 3y ago
> All that matters is that there are enough people willingly using it to make it worthwhile for the project to accept these donations. And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money, this isn't appealing for anyone that wants to accept donations with crypto and is the absolute worst way to do it and is the best way to lose 'money'. You can keep ignoring my stats but people want stability with their money not instability and crypto isn't it. > You're mistaken, high TX fees are an exception, not the norm. Both Monero (which this project accepts) and Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001. Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true, and we are not even counting the exchanges, conversion fees, etc. > I'm just questioning HackerNews' collective tendency to publicly shame projects that accept crypto donations. It's a shining legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, and rather than applauding it or at least ignoring it, you feel compelled to deny its existence and remind everyone that crypto is "only" used for scams and drugs - why? Because the bad heavily outweighs any (alleged) good crypto "has". Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today. If someone gives me $200 I expect $200 in my account. With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2. This doesn't make any sense and will further discourage creators. There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system. > Litecoin transactions cost less than $0.001. That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin, hence: > If you want to talk about 0% fees, this doesn't exist in any widely used crypto token so I don't know where you got that from.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  You're just repeating the same disingenuous talking points, as if I'm trying to persuade YOU to use crypto - I'm really not. If those are your conclusions, then you're perfectly entitled to just stay away from it. The only thing I'm really interested in is why you're making it your business to shame projects for accepting crypto donations? Just for completeness sake, before you accuse me of disregarding your points: > And the price comes crashing due to market manipulation and the project loses money Anyone who sees this as a real threat can convert to another currency immediately or in regular intervals, making it a non-issue while still being able to transact using cryptocurrency. > Whether they are high or low they are still fees and you said absolutely 0% which is not true We're talking about fractions of a cent per TX. That's essentially free for all realistic scenarios. All centralized systems carry a 2-50% + fixed ~30c fee. > Because it is an even worse system than what we already have today. Situational. Neither system covers everyone's needs. > With crypto someone can give me $200 and the next minute in my account I get $2 This just doesn't happen in reality. Normal fluctuations happen in both directions just as with any other currency exchange market. > There is nothing special or anything unique that crypto has solved or done better than the current financial system. Blatantly false, the current financial system doesn't have any privacy and is susceptible to government interference, e.g. account freezes. > That is because almost nobody is using Litecoin And that's a shame, but regardless, it's one of the most secure chains (w.r.t. 51% attacks) with ubiquitous support and one of the longest track records. It's a perfectly adequate way to accept donations.
  - colesantiago 3y ago
    Where are the sources backing each of your claims? Since you don't have any I have disregarded and ignored all your spurious points as you have no credible up to date (2020/2023) sources backing them and yet I have.