Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

> The Wikimedia Foundation currently accepts cryptocurrency donations in currencies including Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum, as explained on the "Other ways to give" page. I propose that we stop accepting cryptocurrency donations.

Here we go again with Bitcoin, PoW === All cryptocurrencies.

So all cryptocurrencies are Proof-of-Work and non-Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies don't exist today? Perhaps XRP, Nano, Stellar, Solana, Algorand, and Hedera are all destroying the environment and are slow for payments?

I mean I don't even like the hype around cryptocurrencies, but the main reasons presented by this RFC for not using them are quite weak and completely outdated. Yawn.

View on HN

They aren't saying those are all the currencies that exist, they are saying those are the ones they currently accept.

The question they are asking is specifically "should we continue to accept these" and not "should we accept a bunch of new ones instead" which seems to be the conversation you're trying to have.

Anyway though you've only addressed one of the three points. Even if the second one can be dismissed through proof of work magic or whatever the first and third points are still relevant and strong.

> Even if the second one can be dismissed through proof of work magic or whatever the first and third points are still relevant and strong.

Nope. Paragraphs 1 and 3 have absolutely nothing to do with the current limitations and reasons as to why cryptocurrency donations are bad and should not be accepted. After all that is the point of the whole argument. Reasons like 'it will make us look bad' is not only terribly weak but it is a guilt by association and irrelevant to the cryptocurrency and the technology itself.

Given that they agree with Mozilla's reasons for dropping them whilst also repeating the same environment cases in the paragraph 2, it is heavily motivated by the second point.

BitPay accepts regulated stablecoins such as USDC, USDP, etc. What is so predatory or such and 'extremely risky investment' about them? I don't see how you can use that as a ponzi or even solely as an investment. Not only the environmental concerns argument (point 2) has been refuted to death too many times, using that as a reason to dismiss cryptocurrency donations on the basis of three PoW coins is again fallacious.

USDC is not regulated in any meaningful sense. There is no actual regulation for stablecoins, it doesn't exist yet. All they have are attestations (pinky promise) and a distinct lack of audits

Attestations are not "pinky promises". They are third party verifications of the data:

https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/defining-attestation-assu...

Moreover, there's no need for private organizations to adopt the toxic neuroticism that deems anything not under the supervision of a single government authority (e.g. the Federal Reserve system) to be like a contagion to be avoided.

This kind of strategy seems to be based on a zero-risk cognitive bias, rather than a rational cost-benefit analysis. Over-reacting to risk can be just as destructive as under-reacting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com