Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd. This 100% reminds me of the almost cultist like extremely negative reaction to anything related to crypto on some parts of twitter. Now I have been active in crypto mocking groups for years , but this feels more like some people have incorporated "anticrypto" to their daily culture war routine. So it must be purged from everywhere.
Also, I'm semi active in the wiki community and I have never heard anyone talk about the climate impact of their wiki mania meetups and the hundreds of flights that it requires. Or jimbo going to davos in private planes... etc. Well maybe this is signaling that climate change will actually be taken in consideration by the foundation and the wiki editors for their future policy decisions and RFCs , but I somehow doubt it.
The other reasons are even less relevant to wikimedia's mission.
Charities generally have the luxury of having core values superior to delivering a return to investors. To not accept crypto for moral reasons makes much more sense to a not for profit that a for profit business.
Kudos Wikepedia. This world would be a better place if more did the same and honored their core values at whatever cost.
and
> Yet the whole thing just does not make sense imo. It's one thing to be against crypto, but refusing it when you are a charity for the most asinine moral purity tests is absurd.
It seems like the first paragraph you said would be enough of a reason to not accept it.
> enough of a reason to not accept it.
Not if that's simply another instance of Sturgeon's law ("90% of everything is crap"): https://nitter.net/mycoliza/status/1451992293532004355
I mean otherwise, sure, illegal drugs are 90% crap, but wouldn't it be stupid to not accept nickle bags if people wanted to use them for trade?
I also have an NFT I'm willing to sell you, I just need 1000ETH. Yes the NFT market is shitty, but 1000ETH is a pittance if you believe in Stugeon's law.
There are projects that are fair, were fairly distributed, that work and are secure, that are feeless and instant, all while being truly decentralized. Everything that Bitcoin promised to be and wasn't.
So, when the scams die out the best projects willl still exist. It doesn't matter how much of their own face Wikipedia cuts off, but it's sad to see them do it.
Name two?
> Man, there's a baby in that bathwater
It takes a special kind of thinking to insist "yeah, crypto currencies are about 98% scammy, but there must be good in the last 2%!, I've just seen 98 scams in a row, this _increases_ the odds that the next 2 that I see are legit!"
Well,
* no it does not increase the odds, this is desperate wishful thinking clinging to a fixed belief
* what if there is no baby, only bathwater? And where does the burden of proof that there is a baby or not, lie?
- Crypto has been on a 10+ year long quest for “adoption”. So far it’s been fairly pathetic. Organisations who accept it provide a focal point for crypto advocates to point to, legitimising it and luring more retail investors into the Ponzi.
- The environmental impact is massive, which makes accepting it ethically dubious and does not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s values.
I won't call the adoption pathetic, it is just that you are not in the circle of adoption/need. Just like I see people mentioning services here that they say they cannot live without and I do not care if they close tomorrow and I have no idea what those services do.
Crypto is a needed option, it can be made to be more environmentally friendly. I personally *often* do not (and cannot) benefit from the global banking system despite all the waste it produce from electricity to wasted manpower to the carbon footprint of material for buildings and offices.
Crypto as many other technologies have use cases, believe in the use case, don't be dogmatic. This is no different from "we only need Java in the world why other languages exist?".
I'm not trying to unfairly critique your personal choices, but that's just the reality. Just like how you basically can't possibly survive in a city without participating somehow in the global capitalist market economy, you can't claim to personally not partake in the global banking system. It's everywhere, and you might personally take issue with it and of course can critique it, but you can't claim to not partake or even partly benefit.
This argument has never made sense to me. BTC is fundamentally proof-of-work, and attempts to switch it to some other “green” mechanism will almost certainly fail (see Bitcoin Cash). Ethereum has been promising PoS for nearly as long as ETH has existed. Other “green” coins are either tech-demos, ponzi schemes, or some amalgam of the two.
The ball is rolling, the train has left the station, BTC and ETH have the momentum. Other than rug-pull incentives like airdrops, why would those in the “circle of adoption/need” choose green crypto over what is established?
If in a few years the whole world adopts crypto for payments, then perhaps they should review that.
Until then I'm not sure it's in Wikimedia's interests to be a pioneering "early adopter/supporter" of crypto payments, given the legitimate ethical concerns.
You don't get points for what *can be* but *what is*.
> Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels.
This alone would be a sufficient reason to drop it if it requires extra accounting work, technical maintenance work, staff training, support work, etc.
Energy consumed by mining is limited by income that miners can get, and this income is limited by mining_rate + fee_rate. mining_rate gradually diminishes and therefore in the end it would be just fee_rate. Thus, bitcoin users would be paying for processing their transactions. Why do we have a right to forbid them spending their money on this? Why is it OK to let somebody spend his/hers money on gas for travelling by car instead of bus or train, but in the same time it is not OK for them to spend their money on doing their value transactions the way they like?
If we as a society assume that we cannot afford to spend so much fossil fuel on energy as today this means we have not set proper high enough price on it.
Just rising the energy ( gas / electricity / etc ) price and stopping obsessing about each particular thing if it is environmental friendly or not seems to me a much more cogent, simple and efficient solution.
2018: Only criminals use it
2020: Only fringe websites use it
2022: Only small countries use it
2024: ????
First of all, the things you've listed are not building not "one level above the former". The question should be: Are more criminals using crypto now than in 2018? Are more website using using crypo now than in 2020?
For the former: I definitely can't the buy the shit that I used to be able to with the mainstream coins. So I'm not sure how that is going to play out. The market definitely changed for criminals using crypto.
For the latter: I don't have hard data on this, but I'd bet a good wager that the golden time of "You can also pay in crypto!!" is over. Back then crypto was practically only advertised as a means of exchange, which lead to more services offering it as a means of exchange. Nowadays the vast majority of the mainstream crypto (and where most of the "money" is) is used as a storage of value. You could buy all kinds of crazy shit, even with fairly big companies with mainstream crypto. Nowadays? Not so much.
About your 2022 example. I see you've used the plural. Countries. Is that so? Which country, other than El Salvador, is also using crypto as a legal tender? And while you're googling that, please make sure to also google how much the usage for crypto has changed El Salvador since it became legal tender. And how the adoption of it was. I'll give you a little hint: Quite literally not at all.
Charities, unlike for-profit businesses, tend to be moral ventures. Refusing donations, modes of operation, etc., for reasons that seem to be “asinine moral purity tests” for anyone with different moral views than the decision-makers is...pretty par for the course.
I am a user of Wikipedia and a regular donor, but I do not follow whatever list there is of issues to be voted on.
This was not a vote of Wikipedia donors, it was a vote of politically active Wikipedia authors on the subject of which donations should be accepted.
It's an interesting topic in on itself, about rejecting donations. On one hand they are donations to you so you should be greatful but on the other hand, if they are from the party you're against... well, do you accept even if it helps your cause?
There were significant numbers of pro-crypto people sharing it to get people to vote no.
But internally for an individual trying to understand why someone else would make a choice that they themselves would not, it does matter for improving our own understanding and empathy. If you choose B but I would choose A if I were in your shame shoes, then either I don't understand your shoes well enough to call them the same or I'm missing some understanding of the issue. Even in the case where we could objectively determine that A was the correct choice, if I don't understand why you choose B then I'm still missing something about the situation.
This could be just to sate curiosity, but enough instances of similar behavior allows us to better understand and empathize with others. When it comes to an issue we think we understand better than most other issues, to have a disagreement in what we would've done is much more striking and indicative of some flaw in our understanding. If this was a bunch of surgeons picking some post-surgery recovery practice to recommend, I could easily dismiss the difference in me not understanding the topic well enough. If it is instead a kid picking a different answer than I would on a test after I helped tutor them, then it is a much clearer indication that I'm missing something in tutoring. Maybe a bad assumption about prior knowledge, maybe an unknown to me issue with test taking like them having significant test anxiety that doesn't show up in tutoring, ect.
They are a non-profit only in the most technical sense these days, but have never been a charity.
But it still feels the need to plead (or almost beg) for 3-5$ donations yearly with huge call to action banners on every wiki page. Which is okay, I get that they need funds. But to then throw away 140 000$ worth of donations on a whim completely contradicts the "every dollar counts, please help" message of their fundraising banners.
The former is a community decision, the latter is done by the WMF. Many in the community, probably a majority, are very annoyed by WMF's yearly dishonest begging runs, and WMF's interference in WP operations in general.
This decision has been taken by the community, aka users. This isn’t a decision the WMF has taken, nor have they responded thus far.
As you said a lot of what's actually done with cryptocurrencies and blockchain based applications is wrong/pernicious but it doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of it. The all out war from some people you describe can also be seen here and is killing the efforts of serious people trying to build great things.
But that is just it, Wikipedia isn't that desperate for money that it has to do tricks for con artists and scammers. Now if Wikipedia was tethering at the edge of non existence it might be excusable, but it isn't, it is making enough to keep running without pandering to the scum of the earth.
This could as well be orchestrated by fiat enthusiasts.
That's not to say that I'm thus for or against this ban, or for or against flying people out to edit a website from a central location together (assuming that's what wiki mania meetups are), just that the flaw in the logic is that flying isn't practically avoidable if you want to meet up from across the world, while donations have a thousand other avenues (and for those who aren't able to make a donation now from North Korea or so, it's not to their disadvantage, it's not like Wikipedia was a VPN provider, or like you want to hide a Wikileaks donation from your government). This happens in a lot of the whataboutism around doing one thing for the climate while not being perfect because you still do this other thing.
How can you write that when you just called crypto a "scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps?" If your characterization is in earnest then any charity would reflexively avoid such a thing. (Possibly excepting Sci-hub who cannot receive donations any other way-- at least that's the only positive edge case I can think of that warrants the "for the most part" hedge)
Edit: clarification
A charity explicitly prefers altruism over gain from moral conviction. One can hardly expect them to optimize for financial gain, even if there exists a compelling utilitarian argument that this would allow them to perform more altruism.
Indeed, this in my view is preferable - one need only gesture towards the infamy of "the ends justify the means" to make an argument against strict utilitarian behavior.
The website is not as neutral as it was in its heyday, and that reflection comes in this headline alone.
Gonna have to say, wikipedia is free to do what it wants, I'm all for free markets and freedom to choose what they want, I'm not opposed to their choice.
Having said that, there's a good population that exists that don't want to be lied to and we'll just choose somewhere else to get our information if censorship soft or hard continues to get in the way of truth. All I'm saying is people will recognize (and already have recognized) that wikipedia is no longer the source of truth ( and is in many ways controlled by the same personality type of people who are lvl 99 on world of warcraft whose life purpose is to pwn noobs and assert dominance with every living breath )
Yes.
What sort of a terrible person would I be if I considered crypto to be a force for evil, but greased its machinery just because there was money in it for me? It's not about signalling moral purity, it's about holding myself to my own standards. How could I look myself in the mirror if I didn't?
I don't care if other people accept crypto. I don't even care if they barter ivory, tiger hides, and congolese blood diamonds with Vladimir Putin himself. That's between them and their conscience to sort out.
The first is what you're addressing: is this particular bit of value from a bad place? Both systems have issues there. I still think fiat is better, because the bank the transfer originates from has presumably done KYC. I also don't think it's that big of a deal; there are much worse things to do with drug money.
The second is entirely different: is accepting this currency going to help proliferate problems associated with the currency? I.e. does accepting Bitcoin legitimize it and implicitly encourage others to use Bitcoin, amplifying any environmental or money laundering concerns?
I don't have a hard stance, I'm not a member of any of the relevant groups. I can see where they're coming from, and I don't find it a crazy stance. Really, either side seems fair.
I can't in good conscience ignore what I know because there are other things I don't.
> Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels.
Remember that Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites on the planet, I'm also assuming that other websites trying to accept crypto have even smaller percentages rendering cryptocurrencies as payment useless, not to mention damaging to the environment.
What is really happening is that nobody is using it for payments at all, rather just holding crypto coins and hoping they'll go up and speculating on the price.
It's a high friction, culture-clashing payment flow. I certainly noped out of that form real fast.
For comparison: https://www.givedirectly.org/crypto/
And another campaign on The Giving Block, an anonymity friendly donation payment processor: https://thegivingblock.com/campaigns/ukraine-emergency-respo...
1. I wonder if they'll keep this enabled or not?
I was wondering the same thing -- hopefully they will, as I'd like to see that model succeed.
Yes, that’s known as KYC laws, which are required if you’re a payment processor of any kind.
As tax considerations with crypto are just getting off the ground
So you basically have this wide polar extreme of:
A) People using crypto and thinking there are no taxes
B) And entrepreneurs moving their premines to their own non-profits for massive tax breaks and exemption
leaving existing non-profits just waiting
People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them and more become loaded with appreciated assets or just have an inventory of crypto at all times
People close to B) are also loaded with assets and more likely to contribute to other non profits
Its better for a non profit to keep the door open and have the payment rails available. Large contributions could happen at any time. At the end of the day, money talks, pretty much all non profits figure it out when a donor wants to donate any large asset, including in crypto
This is very not true. Buying and selling anything has very clear tax implications. It's more that enforcement is slow, and people are willingly breaking the law because of it. Here's a good Twitter conversation explaining the situation:
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1501707876888240131
> I think the issue is mostly that the industry’s core request is “Can we have an outright exemption from securities regulation?”, the regulators say “Absolutely not you must follow the law.”, industry follows with “How high is this on your enforcement priority list?”, “Not very.”
> And so industry complains “My my this all seems so ambiguous and look at all these similar projects which never get enforcement actions. I wish we had Regulatory Clarity (TM).”
I was saying that crypto users willing to consider tax and more complex tax is just getting off the ground, not that the law itself ever ignored them
I think the rest of my post makes that clear
> People in A) move slightly towards the center year over year as reality catches up to them (the reality that tax always applied)
but I can see how it doesn't, especially if you are expecting a crypto tax / regulation protestor
The above statement is false.
I prefer to use cash and crypto to prevent my expenses from being tracked (although I absolutely am not avoiding any taxes). I pay cash, not crypto when I want weed (sadly it's still illegal in most of the places). I rarely hold more than $100 worth so don't care about where is the rate going. I presume I'm not unique.
[Citation needed]
Over the past years I've been able to book flights, shop hardware, get hotels and rental cars, renew my domain, pay for my server with cryptocurrencies.
You could buy fully modifiable/refundable first class tickets and use them as free options to bet on the crypto in question
WP:NPOV is about article content, not payment systems.
> Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory.
Neutral hardly exists.
as if banks don't spend billions in pointless air travel and (empty in past 2 years) concrete highrises. When WP goes down the ideological rabbit hole everyone loses.
maybe someone will follow up with an RFC to remove banks
Then paypal
> Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies.
it looks 100% ideological
Or, if the on-chain parties are just Wikipedia and a few big payment service providers to avoid that everyone has to do the setup individually, you've basically reinvented paypal credits or, less evil-ly, liberapay.
The assumption is that Lightning users already have active open channels to other nodes in the network, and so making a new donation to Wikimedia would not require any additional channel opening, and no on-chain activity.
> “In a situation like this, where the national bank is not fully operating, crypto is helping to perform fast transfers, to make it very quick and get results almost immediately.”
NYTimes: https://archive.ph/3HVqU#
which are less than 1% of the yearly transaction volume according to Chainalysis lol
Sure there is. A lot of people have lots of value tied up in crypto, a very liquid asset. It’s also easy to send. I know nothing about wiring money to Ukraine, but I know how to donate to Ukraine organizations that accept crypto. If crypto is a small part of your revenue stream, maybe it’s because you haven’t nurtured it as a donation channel.
You go to your bank and ask them to start a wire transfer. The recipient’s bank will provide the instructions. You can even do this entirely online.
How do these people buy groceries or pay regular bills? Most places don’t accept crypto for payments.
If and when the whole world has moved to crypto payments I’m sure they’ll review it again. Until then the argument there are lots of people who have crypto and have not heard of / don’t know how to use a Visa card stretches credulity.
There are also cases in my own country where cryptocurrency is very useful for gambling, with nothing illegal taking place.
With ETH for example, I can create a new EIP, and if the majority of users agree with it, the currency can evolve. For example see EIP-1559 adoption despite it going against miners best interests, or even EIP-721 which has led to profound changes in the way the network is now used. This is pretty much "majority rule" but obviously it is being driven primarily by developers and those with the technical knowledge needed to propose and shape these EIPs.
On the other hand, with USD (or any state currency) I have nearly zero chance of influencing its policy, inflation, and so on. The only option I have is to write to politicians and hope they take it further. If the politicians (governing body) in place do not currently agree with this policy despite a large (user) backlash, there is no way for users to "fork" the USD, and so they are forced to adopt whichever decisions are made by their current government and policy makers. This is especially true if you live outside the US (as I do), but are still required to use USD by virtue of working with US clients, US customers, and primarily USD-based payment systems (e.g. as Wikimedia is stepping closer toward with this change).
This is mostly just presented as a thought experiment in response to the idea that USD is far more democratic than an open source + decentralized currency.
This isn't the same as when you boycott a company's products and it causes a loss of sales.
Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining.
It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.
I also did a bunch of year end donations through https://thegivingblock.com/ which allows non-profits to easily receive donations via hundreds of different crypto assets and is pretty seamless for both parties (you fill in your tax info once, get an automated tax receipt letter, the receiving party gets automatic cash auto-conversion (if they want) and donor info).
Also, generally not tax deductible, but I'm a big fan of what https://gitcoin.co/ is doing with sybil resistant quadratic fund matching. Generally, not tax deductible, so I keep my donations small (using either zkSync or Polygon to save on fees) but for the latest GR13 funding round, top grants were getting up to 10:1 matching (mostly Ukraine crisis response campaigns - UNICEF got a whopping 37X match btw!) https://gitcoin.co/blog/grants-round-13-round-results-recap/
The publicity of it is to establish an understanding that cryptocurrencies are entirely populated by scammers and their victims, and that ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers.
Exactly! They have amassed so much money that they can afford to wage ideological crusades against things unrelated to their core mission. That's a clear signal that it's time to reduce donations to Wikipedia.
> No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue.
The difference is spending to advance Wikipedia's core mission, versus spending to advance random unrelated ventures.
> ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers.
Nope, that's not it, at all. If that were the case, they would have announced some kind of KYC initiative to identify scammers and refuse their donations. But they aren't targeting scammers specifically - scammers are still welcome to send their donations in USD, and Wikipedia will happily accept their donations. What they won't accept is donations in crypto, regardless of the origin of that donation.
That’s how RfCs work—they’re public by nature, so that people can comment. It’s hardly feasible not to then promulgate the outcome.
> they stop accepting certain forms of donations
They haven’t. This is a proposal through an RfC. The foundation may or may not accept it.
> organization isn't particularly starving for donations
Well it isn’t, so that’s a good thing. People should stop donating to the foundation for a while. Hopefully the bureaucracy will be slashed.
That's not a conclusion that came to my mind. Despite all the hype, Bitcoin is still a niche payment system and basically everyone can use a more established payment method instead.
Are you hypothesizing that the amount of donations will not be reduced as a result of this decision? Even the person who wrote the proposal admitted that this decision would lead to less donations. Are you suggesting 100% of people who were going to donate with crypto are now going to donate the same amounts using traditional channels?
It's as or more likely a signal that the cost of accepting those forms of donations is too high. Cost for non-profits can mean more than just currency, it can be things like ethics, morality, popularity, political stances, etc.
Yet a bigger problem is that too much money is moved out of these countries by those in power and hamstered away in various global tax havens.
I recommend "Moneyland" for anybody wanting to learn more.
The Knowledge Standards Foundation does. We're making an open network of all the encyclopedias (http://encyclosphere.org). Contact us: info@encyclosphere.org
Disclosure: I was co-founder of Wikipedia, once upon a time, and the KSF is my project.
These censorship use cases are slowly moving towards more possible mainstream familiarity and empathy, and in my opinion also moving towards impacting progressive activist groups with axes to grind and payment rails dependent on the targets of those activism.
When that eventually comes to a head, as it seems likely, then the real decision point on cryptocurrencies will occur.
Assange gets payments/donations cut off from all the major providers - ok, he's possibly a Russian asset, not a great personality fit for whistleblower empathy, did some shady/bad things, ok who cares.
OnlyFans almost gets its payment rails cut off by investors due to its core content - ok, I may not know camgirls/boys, but I can empathize with them a bit more and certainly don't like Investment Banks and Visa telling folks how to spend their evenings.
Now, taking a look at climate action groups, and wikis that try to leverage free and fair information for a public good. Also, not much has changed since 2008. The predatory financial behaviors still occur, maybe just called something differently - see Canada banning foreign purchases of homes. Depending on which side of the abortion debate you are on, large chunks of the country are moving in divergent directions on it. Unions in tech-y warehouse jobs have serious OPSEC concerns and are shifting over to Signal for coordination.
All of these causes and related groups rely on digital rails for payments, information sharing, and organization (Slack groups, Paypal accounts, GSuite free-ish emails, Signal groups etc). There is already a trend of building OPSEC programs for activist-y groups, and leveraging data science/FOIA for activist research. The McDonald's CEO was nabbed for this via a ~FOIA against the Chicago mayor. All of these causes' desired outcomes fundamentally oppose core tenants of corporate infrastructure, pending some major change. Climate activism especially comes to mind.
When the real conversations and possible anger actually start occurring in these groups, andthe real reactions from their counter-parties start occurring in public, and the fights over what gets into a wikipedia article occur in conjunction more so than already, a censorship-free payment rail comes into play. That means paper cash, cryptocurrency, or maybe some new tech. But I doubt Zelle or Venmo are safe at that point. I think the real so-what debate about crypto starts at that point.
I find it annoying that all cryptocurrencies would found guilty-by-association when it is well known that not all cryptocurrencies damage to the environment.
If you read the responses in support of the proposal, you can clearly see that the majority of them are citing 'Environmental reasons and concerns' which that even has already been refuted to death.
Mozilla seems to have made the sensible decision to not allow PoW cryptocurrencies and to allow only eco-friendly cryptocurrencies. It is the mining that is doing the damage to the environment which that is the problem.
Guilt-by-association works all the time on people who want a blanket ban on anything they don't like, especially when there are bad eggs spoiling the bunch.
Wikipedia is not hard up for cash (if you earnestly believe their begging ads, you must be naive. Give me a break.) But crypto is hard up for legitimacy.
wow you are such an enlightened individual aren't you? Give me a break.
They earnestly do not need your funny money.
This is the most ignorant comment I've ever read on an org that relies on donations. Cash runs out my friend (shit happens, operations change and scale, bad decisions occur). It's not like they are a for profit business that can rely on other methods.
Occam's razor would suggest to do nothing, but ideological axes are being wielded. This will turn a lot of people off.
Without that, the 'founding ideas' are just ideas wikipedians used to have, and are far less relevant than the ideas wikipedians presently have. Their present views are evidenced by this vote, which crypto advocates are clearly upset about.
> Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
people who are looking for rules to manipulate perhaps should build their own projects
> A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, under indefinite general sanctions, effective 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC).
“DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS,”
got them over 150MM without crypto.
Their stance on banning crypto changes nothing on this front, and only serves to make themselves seem 'green'
The energy argument against crypto is total BS and just an attack from the legacy banking industry and their cronies.
I wonder what would happen if crypto somehow managed to replace central banks and how the world would change
My personal guess is that we would recreate most of the infrastructure on top, but with monetary policy now in the hand of a select few individuals instead of governments. The consequences for the world at large would be interesting to explore.
Bitcoin's monetary policy is fixed. It is in nobody's hand, but everybody who decides to run a validating node.
Monetary policy is controlled by central banks, which are privately owned. On paper, they're regulated by government, but in practice, politicians are easily bought, bribed or have their hands tied. The monetary policy is not decided by the people you elect into government.
Those nodes are literally owned by people. The wealthier the person, the more nodes they can run. Which is exactly how crypto took off; drug cartels mined it, dealt with it, making money both on selling the coins to buyers for cash and on selling the product to the buyers.
Large organizations and wealthy people, criminal or not, can and do control all proof of work (by controlling more workers) and proof of stake (by mining, purchasing, and holding more crypto). And because of the secrecy, we don't know who in many cases (ok... the various intelligence agencies might), and they aren't effectively regulated in any way.
All crypto has done is make it so the only requirement to gain wealth is to already be wealthy. This is far more direct of a relationship with crypto than with real currency, where you at least have to do actual work of some sort to make money.
My understanding is that bitcoins monetary policy can be changed through code, something a very small group is allowed to do in practice, even though theoretically it could be forked easily. Previous attempts at democratication of decisions have been prevented by various questionable tactics and by measures of share of computer power, something also held by very few people. Maybe this changed since I stopped paying attention to it, though.
> which are privately owned
Again, my understanding is that the reserve banks are some form of private entities but essentially owned by their governments (e.g., profits are transfered to them). Sites like the faq of the fed (https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm) and information about the german central bank seem to confirm that view so far.
This should not be up to a vote. Wikipedia is there to be an encyclopedia, not have opinions on currency.
People should be prepared for when Wikipedia becomes the enemy.
F-Droid, DDG, Cloudflare all flipped at points.
The problem is if Wikipedia treats themselves like a democracy with no strong constitution and legal system once these decisions on morals start, we all know where they end up, the same as Twitter.
Wikipedia still is a good source for general-purpose information on unpolitical topics, but the moment even the slightest amount of controversy exists around a lemma, it's unreliable and unusable.
In return (not really), wondering if you could give me a little more detail on F-Droid 'flipping'. Because this is news to me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20466730
They should get points for admitting they are political I guess? Not sure.
Obviously it started something, there have been a few small issues since.
But I'd like to see how much time is wasted on talking compared to coding since.
The lowbrow who can't code will say words like Nazi which holds back the people who contribute to society by construction. Gay marriage was because of coders not activists.
This is what Wiki should fear.
Let's see who wins.
The "fight you" stage is when people perceive it as a threat. And it already needs to be big enough to be considered a threat. Can still be a bad idea of course. We'll see.
Meh. I’ve donated in the past, but will just look for different charities in the future.
Non news article imo.
>You don't usually donate to charities so they can speculate with that money.
Similarly one wouldn't want your donation to just sit somewhere reducing in value due to inflation. If you donated $100 and then later when Wikipedia actually needed the money they were able to sell your donation for $1000, your donation was able to do more for them than if they had just immediately sold it.
Saying that most likely Wikipedia has to convert the bitcoin to cash before the end of the year. They cannot keep crypto as reserve or investment
I’m in the non profit space. There isnt a single thing they would have had to do with crypto donated to them. So yeah they could have ridden it up.
Even investing rules and guidelines from the state and fed exempt donated assets from them completely.
Non profits just lack an incentive to learn how to do anything well, and are often staffed by people that have never had to consider market forces.
Being involved in a project that would benefit from being a formalized German no-profit entity, there is another issue: the laws around non-profit entities are vague and at the same time there are almost no lawyers specializing in non-profit laws and regulations. The major ones (think of Greenpeace and the likes) all have their in-house counsel, and the countless smaller ones just wing it and hope the tax man never comes for an audit.
Some object on the grounds of PoW mining and its incentive structure; others due to their tendencies to disproportionately accumulate wealth to early adopters; yet others due to widespread predatory and/or misleading marketing. I‘m probably forgetting several other reasons here.
Personally, anything based on proof-of-scarce-resource is pretty much a no-go (unless it would suddenly provide benefits more than outweighing the damage it does), but definitely not only that.
I notice this wasn't even raised in the RFC.
Just like the cannabis industry! Oh wait...
Can you expand?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/05/bitcoin-a-lifeline-for-sex-w...
Thats… medieval.
Reasons like "risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies", solvable with education, sure.
People who use cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other related stuff all have a vested interest in it succeeding. That has led to a lot of people who have annoyingly strong opinions about it.
Things like "educating others" by cryptobro-splaining all over things is not going to solve the reputation of the movement.
What's happening here is that you're seeing a peek into a different bubble. In your bubble, only a lack of education would be a valid reason to avoid bitcoin.
In the bubble of wikipedia users who care enough to touch this poll, it is far less one-sided. I assure you all of those users who voted for or against have more than an average amount of education on the issues too, it's not like you can be the sort of person who votes on a wikipedia RFC without _also_ being a very online person.
Linked to the other reason about their environmental impact which is not relevant to most crypto currencies.
And the problem of supposed implicit endorsement of the perceived environmental impact, which changes when people understand which crypto currencies to use or how to use them or what specific problems to solve or advocate against.
All solved with education.
If people that know this cant be a source then who can be a source, in your opinion?
It's very relevant to "most" cryptocurrencies by value, though - Bitcoin and Ethereum are still PoW, and these two make up most of the market anyway, especially when including other coins based on their chains, like Tether and USDC.
Cryptobro-splainer here. Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next... and while this is going on you can't help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation... always without acknowledging the most important part - "relative to what?" But that isn't really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position.
What was the voting results otherwise?
So many questions
The raw counts are:
Strongly support: 35 (+1 with no icon, not sure if this got counted)
Support: 192 (+1 with no icon)
Weakly support: 4
Weakly oppose: 5
Oppose: 86
Strongly oppose: 20
So the "raw" figures are 233 to 111 or 68%, still a clear majority and not that different from the 72% "anti-astroturfing" figure.
I'd also point out that voting on wikipedia is also non-binding.
