Crypto is only used for non legitimate and speculative purposes and mostly scams. [1]
Instead Patreon or Librapay is a better way to support them.
Instead Patreon or Librapay is a better way to support them.
But, if a central authority is invested in being able to shut down any commerce it doesn't like but can't make illegal, and it does so by leaning on private parties, and you see that alliance of central government authority and their corporate donors/clients as legitimate, I suppose crypto is indeed used for non legitimate purposes.
Patreon has openly debanked people for investigating human trafficking rings tied to the European migrant crisis. At least use subscribestar if you bought the slander against crypto.
https://liberapay.com/FreeTube
No need for crypto or Patreon.
They don’t care if it’s traceable, they care that it’s irreversible. They can just run the money through a tumbler anyway.
“Criminal activity” is one the things crypto is best at, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
[0]: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/06/08/state-of-crypto-r...
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/pig-butchering-scammers-make...
This is something that only criminals would be happy that exists.
I don't think creators would want to use any form of crypto or have their wallet becoming blacklisted at any time because they 'bought' or received bitcoin/monero from someone else that is associated with north korean hackers and criminals.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-...
https://civicscience.com/paypal-now-sells-cryptocurrency-but...
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2022-biggest-year-ever-for-...
While crypto has many downsides worth discussing, there is no reasoning to be had with anti-crypto zealots like you..
It's both. It is yet another reason why nobody should use crypto. Why should anyone use a wallet that is associated with a blacklisted address?
It is simply not worth the hassle, especially when the stats shows that people are not confident in the reliability or safety crypto even if they have heard about it, here is a direct link to this so that you can print this at home:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/10/majority-...
> Don't you think the authors should be able to choose what is the best funding method for their project?
I hope you're not suggesting that crypto is the best method because we both know it isn't.
It would be like busking for donations in Chernobyl. You can technically do it except nobody is or will be there to give it to you. The same can be said for crypto.
You might as well use the payment systems that everyone is using rather than a volatile Rube-Goldberg machine appeals mainly to criminals.
> While crypto has many downsides worth discussing, there is no reasoning to be had with anti-crypto zealots like you.
Yes. There are only many downsides, no upsides.
It's far quicker not to bother with crypto than to try and use it. Only criminals are bothered with it because it fits their use case better, illegitimate and criminal activity.
Mind your confirmation bias.
So rather than advocating for 0% fee, true peer to peer donations, your first alternative is to inject a VC-backed parasite in the middle - why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.