8 ms·

The Wikimedia Foundation's acceptance of cryptocurrency donations

22 points by hesk 5y ago

Mindwipe 5y ago
What an odd article. The value of most state fiat currencies has many of the problems cited - the value of the US dollar and GB pound is non-trivially based upon slavery and unquestionably significantly driven by environmental damage, but there is no mention of those in the article. That isn't whataboutism, the consequences of not accepting Bitcoin would be to take either not take anything at all, or to take those currencies with the problem that it entails. 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.
rvz 5y ago
Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. 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.
- tchock23 5y ago
  The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. 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.
- rendx 5y ago
  Err, you are aware that electric cars are not more environment friendly than diesel or petrol cars? You more or less just shift the environmental damage to the location of production (batteries, etc). 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.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    The CO2 break-even is around 8 years for an electric car, and the bulk of the other materials are recyclable.
    - rendx 5y ago
      In some sense, anything is "recyclable". What does that mean in reality? How much "recyclable" material is actually reused, how much resource transformation does it take to reuse or recycle? Which economic incentives exist, and are they working? "co2" is a single data point, and of course you can tune the process to minimize one, at the cost of something other. How about all the "rare materials" that are required, and all the other pollutants? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/electric-car-batteries-what-happens-to-them https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/electric... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779 https://undark.org/2021/01/21/electric-car-looming-recyclability-problem/ 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.
  - foobank 5y ago
    The environment cost of electric cars is via battery production, and happens to be via the grid. That is, producing electric cars is as dirty as the grid. We're cleaning up the grid, which will clean electric car production cars. Combustion engines have no such path.
- 22c 5y ago
  To me, it reeks of a new form of virtue signalling.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Which are these climate neutral crypto currencies?
- rank0 5y ago
  Crypto is in a rough spot rn regarding consensus mechanisms. POW is seen as unsustainable, but pos is sheer plutocracy. I would rather have pow and accept the environmental damage rather than centralize the fuck out of what was supposed to be a financial revolution “for the people”. 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.
- gregopet 5y ago
  The crypto community has been so bad at denouncing and excluding the bad elements and ideas from within itself that more and more people simply want to have nothing to do with you. We know you can spend pages and pages on your yes-buts but we're just tired and would prefer if you moved along.
foobank 5y ago
Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency. 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?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). 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?
  - foobank 5y ago
    Yes, it's whataboutism. Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      "Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1] It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
      - rosndo 5y ago

22 points by hesk 5y ago

What an odd article. The value of most state fiat currencies has many of the problems cited - the value of the US dollar and GB pound is non-trivially based upon slavery and unquestionably significantly driven by environmental damage, but there is no mention of those in the article. That isn't whataboutism, the consequences of not accepting Bitcoin would be to take either not take anything at all, or to take those currencies with the problem that it entails. 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.

rvz 5y ago

Yes. We all get that Bitcoin has failed in payments and is a complete disaster to the environment. Its characteristics alone make it extremely easy to make an argument against using it. 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.

tchock23 5y ago
The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
- rvz 5y ago
  > The author acknowledges what you are saying in the second half of the fourth paragraph. 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.
rendx 5y ago
Err, you are aware that electric cars are not more environment friendly than diesel or petrol cars? You more or less just shift the environmental damage to the location of production (batteries, etc). 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.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The CO2 break-even is around 8 years for an electric car, and the bulk of the other materials are recyclable.
  - rendx 5y ago
    In some sense, anything is "recyclable". What does that mean in reality? How much "recyclable" material is actually reused, how much resource transformation does it take to reuse or recycle? Which economic incentives exist, and are they working? "co2" is a single data point, and of course you can tune the process to minimize one, at the cost of something other. How about all the "rare materials" that are required, and all the other pollutants? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/electric-car-batteries-what-happens-to-them https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/electric... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779 https://undark.org/2021/01/21/electric-car-looming-recyclability-problem/ 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.
- foobank 5y ago
  The environment cost of electric cars is via battery production, and happens to be via the grid. That is, producing electric cars is as dirty as the grid. We're cleaning up the grid, which will clean electric car production cars. Combustion engines have no such path.
22c 5y ago
To me, it reeks of a new form of virtue signalling.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
Which are these climate neutral crypto currencies?
rank0 5y ago
Crypto is in a rough spot rn regarding consensus mechanisms. POW is seen as unsustainable, but pos is sheer plutocracy. I would rather have pow and accept the environmental damage rather than centralize the fuck out of what was supposed to be a financial revolution “for the people”. 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.
gregopet 5y ago
The crypto community has been so bad at denouncing and excluding the bad elements and ideas from within itself that more and more people simply want to have nothing to do with you. We know you can spend pages and pages on your yes-buts but we're just tired and would prefer if you moved along.

foobank 5y ago

Disclaimer: I have no assets or vested interest in cryotocurrency. 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?

arcticbull 5y ago
Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another). 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?
- foobank 5y ago
  Yes, it's whataboutism. Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    "Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1] It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
    - rosndo 5y ago