The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations
blog.mollywhite.net
blog.mollywhite.net
The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why.
The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods.
Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?
That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post and let's talk about it. Otherwise, one must be prepared to defend their position about the entire universe of ideas when challenging one - surely you can understand why this is counterproductive, untenable and harmful to the discourse?
Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.
It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand.
It would be fallacious to suggest that someone is wrong because of this, but it works as a standalone observation.
Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship).
> That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there.
The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive. The anonymity offered by some cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.
I think the costs dramatically outweigh the value provided. However, that is the meat of the conversation we're having.
> The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.
Respectfully disagree. The ability to send money to North Korea and Iran in violation of international sanctions is regressive. The ability for folks on the OFAC and sanctions list to transact is regressive. Enabling ransomware payments is regressive. Enabling criminals to be paid for their crimes is regressive. Enabling crippling of infrastructure like the pipeline attacks is regressive.
People living in repressive societies like Russia are now able to safely buy weed thanks to cryptocurrencies enabling Hydra.
Before these people would risk prison to get a little stoned, but now they can just buy GPS coordinates on the internet and pick up their drugs without ever interacting with anyone.
It’s not a coincidence that most of the users come from such countries, not the west https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-2021-ge...
How can you genuinely suggest that it is progressive for some guy to prison in Russia because of a joint?
Your position is simply indefensible.
The bulk of the harm created by drugs isn't from the drugs, it's from the cartels, gangs, the mafia - and from the police imprisoning users. Allowing the cartels to transact directly with customers doesn't stop that. It allows the narcos to kidnap, murder, rape and fund their empires - so some Russian kid can smoke a joint.
It's actually a way to make the joint smoking kid more likely to be imprisoned because they paid for their drugs not with an envelope of cash nobody will ever be able to trace - but with an immutable, plaintext, public ledger. Entries on the blockchain are prosecution futures for the little guy. As the technology to de-anonymize them automatically becomes more and more mature, it looks less like a great way to pay for drugs and more like a list of people unaware they're awaiting indictment.
It does nothing to reduce the level of imprisonment of users. It makes the harms associated with drugs significantly worse on both ends. The only way to mitigate the harms is to push for legalization.
However, keep in mind that ad hominem attacks are against site rules.
[edit] So you're clear, no, you did not read this reply correctly. I do not believe in accelerationism. Accelerationism is not progressive. Have a good night!
> It's actually a way to make the joint smoking kid more likely to be imprisoned because they paid for their drugs not with an envelope of cash nobody will ever be able to trace - but with an immutable, plaintext, public ledger.
People in more repressive countries usually source their cryptocurrencies anonymously, western markets all use anonymous monero. Hydra will probably move sooner than later too.
Anyway, in the real world people buying from “traditional” dealers are far more likely to go to jail than those buying dead drops off of hydra.
The truth is that enabling the cartels is extremely progressive. This will eventually force the governments to play ball and liberalize their policies.
> However, keep in mind that ad hominem attacks are against site rules.
In philosophy ad hominem reasoning is often considered an essential part of moral debates. Some opinions are vile and reflect poorly on you, that’s just how it is.
Prosecution futures.
> In philosophy ad hominem reasoning is often considered an essential part of moral debates.
No it is not lol.
And I strongly suggest you re-read what I wrote because it appears to have bypassed you entirely.
Not correct, transactions on bitcoin's lightning network take 1-2 seconds to complete and cost a fraction of a penny.
Either way, it's not relevant because everyone uses centralized exchanges.
I am no Bitcoin evangelist, it has many issues. But it's censorship resistance is important for an encyclopedia. We've seen in recently weeks discussions by the UK government of "regulating" (i.e. censorship) of websites via blocking and payment removal, with Wikipedia specifically brought up as an example by legislators. This is not a hypothetical risk. MasterCard's BRAM rules frequently cause censorship to sexual topics.
Poor stuff.
But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was the only system used. It is not.
It’s like making an argument against driving anything with a wheel for environmental reasons, because most vehicles are still running on either petrol or diesel. (And willfully ignoring alternatives like electric cars)
Instead of continuing to generalize all cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin (and PoW), criticize the others that are either PoS, or use their own consensus algorithm and assess them if they are environmentally unfriendly or are unsuitable for payments.
Since clearly the author keeps recycling the same known predictable critiques on Bitcoin which does not apply to all cryptocurrencies.
Exactly. The authors argument against Bitcoin is recycled and is already widely known. Bitcoin is the easiest to attack and everyone knows it is still unsuitable for payments. Hence this, how does Bitcoin’s unsuitability apply to all cryptocurrencies which that is her argument?
As for the rambling on about the re-centralization of the web3, that is reserved for another another debate since they are talking about using cryptocurrencies for fast and efficient payments and donations. Not web3.
> They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
The only one they can name is Bitcoin or any other PoW cryptocurrency.
The author chooses to generalize where it is unsafe to do so as if only PoW cryptocurrencies exist.
XMRs randomx pow algorithm is a step in the right direction for sustainability and decentralization.
Inb4 “pow actually has a larger barrier to entry!”
Consider this: at least mining operations have to cover their op expenses by selling their rewards.
With pos, there’s an incentive to put your rewards back into your validator pool further restricting supply for the general public.
Especially if you consider how modern cars are not meant to be driven for 20+ years. My diesel van is over 25 years old and still going smoothly. Can you imagine to drive a current Tesla for the next 25 years? How many cars will you "use up"? Let's compare the environmental damage.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/electric...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779
https://undark.org/2021/01/21/electric-car-looming-recyclabi...
Cars are getting bigger and heavier, people buy more cars than ever, and transportation still becomes more and more individualized. The overall environmental damage continues to rise. All these are sad facts, and there is an abundance of "proof" to be found everywhere.
We're cleaning up the grid, which will clean electric car production cars.
Combustion engines have no such path.