9 ms·

Wow. I have never worked on any cryptocurrency projects and never intend to, but I will certainly be staying very far away from Codeberg because of this. There

• raincole 2mo ago
  My rule of thumb: just use the most mainstream options unless I have a very, very strong reason to do otherwise. The mainstream options will screw you, but the niche options will screw you in totally unexpected ways.
  • birksherty 2mo ago
    Are these comments written buy bots? It's the mainstream ones that have been screwing people without any recovery options, there were many horrifying top posts in hn itself in last few years.
  • duxup 2mo ago
    “Nobody ever got fired buying IBM.”
  • tbrownaw 2mo ago
    A nice thing about Git is that you can trivially push to a new upstream any time you need.
    • tehbeard 2mo ago
      Yes yes yes, we know. Git is decentralised, you can just trivially push* anywhere! * - the code. Just the code. only the code. Nothing but the code. You don't need the issues, the roadmap, the ACL of which human can do what, the API access keys for third parties, the artifact repos. Just. The. Code. Somewhat arsey in my tone? Yeah. But having done two large scale (100+ repos) forge migrations of our company's client projects (SVN -> github, then later on github -> bitbucket) and seeing people completely ignore the metadata surrounding the code that isn't as easy to "just push" anywhere, somewhat justified.
  • Marsymars 2mo ago
    That may work for software but boy does that sound like a milquetoast life if applied to everything.
• kurante 2mo ago
  I strongly disagree: I think this is a perfectly acceptable action. No project is entitled to host their project there, nor is any project compelled to do so, so I don't see why there is any harm in having this instance of Forgejo moderate itself as it sees fit. They have no moral requirement to support all kinds of software. If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs. That is the beauty of free software!
  • hbbio 2mo ago
    Another beauty of free software is they took the project from gitea and gogs before that.
  • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
    > No project is entitled to host their project there So tiresome. This is going to lead to an even more fragmented free and open source ecosystem. GitHub is the default choice because it has huge network effects. Codeberg just opted out of those.
    • krapp 2mo ago
      Good. That's how FOSS is supposed to work. Codeberg isn't competing against Github for market share, it serves a specific demographic with a specific ideology. Anyone is welcome to use any other host they want for their crypto and AI projects, with whatever policies align with their preferences. Or make your own with blackjack and hookers. There shouldn't even be "default choices" or "huge network effects" in FOSS anyway. That's just another form of centralization.
    • kurante 2mo ago
      Did they, though? Do we have numbers on how many cryptocurrency projects were removed from Codeberg because of this, since GitHub is the default choice? Or are you suggesting that there is going to be a significant split because of this? I agree that this is probably going to cause some fragmentation, but I'm not convinced that it will do so in a meaningful matter or at the scale at which it is problematic to the free and open source ecosystem. For what it's worth, Forgejo is working on federation[1], which might address your networking effect concerns? [1]: https://forgejo.org/2026-05-monthly-report/#federation https://forgejo.org/2026-05-monthly-report/#federation
• conartist6 2mo ago
  They banned cypto projects two weeks ago. Today they banned vibecoded projects. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...
  • mbreese 2mo ago
    That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is being spun as an effort to save resources, but this is a pretty blunt way to accomplish this. And a great way to alienate a lot of potential users. It's their service and they can choose what they want to host. Maybe they don't see themselves as competing with Github and Gitlab and so they are happy serving the users they have. But to me this does not seem to be a great growth strategy.
    • axus 2mo ago
      I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems. Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good: "It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users. To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects" Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.
    • rtpg 2mo ago
      > To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. here lies the fundamental misunderstanding by many people in this thread. Is the objective of Codeberg to host as many projects as possible on its own server? I do not believe so! The question then becomes "what is Codeberg's objectives?" It's not to become the world's largest code forge instance! It's to build a set of FOSS tools for FOSS software development. Look at [0], for example, which lists alternatives. But perhaps most importantly, the FOSS tooling can be self hosted, right? There's still a notion of freedom there. [0] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#what-is-codeberg-e.v.%3F https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...
• isodev 2mo ago
  > But inflicting a subjective moral judgement on an entire category of software Apple does the same with the App Store btw, are you “staying very far away from” smartphones because of that censorship?
  • gslepak 2mo ago
    Why yes, in fact I am. One of the major reasons [1] I switched to GrapheneOS. [1] https://blog.okturtles.org/2024/06/the-ultimate-ios-to-grapheneos-migration-guide-and-review/ https://blog.okturtles.org/2024/06/the-ultimate-ios-to-graph...
• super256 2mo ago
  Fun fact: They deliberately chose to host in the EU because they were concerned that malicious actors could abuse the DMCA by filing fraudulent copyright claims to take down legitimate software repositories. I guess software that doesn't fit their world view is illegitimate now. Here is a talk from one of their presidium members about GitHub DMCA takedowns: https://vimeo.com/246282607?fl=pl&fe=sh https://vimeo.com/246282607?fl=pl&fe=sh
• comeonbro 2mo ago
  I can't recall which, but I'm certain that I've encountered and probably used Codeberg-hosted things, and from that had gathered a vague positive impression of them. I guess what I'm worried about is that the proprietors of those nice projects I liked (and others) might have chosen Codeberg out of a reasonable set of common assumptions that it was a place for free-as-in-freedom, as they and clearly many of us have always understood it, which were not contradicted by how Codeberg presented themselves up-front. And have now had this sprung on them, after they'd already established themselves there, and might now be facing a miserable and sapping moral dilemma, or even be directly doubting the security of their home there.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    They're probably paying members who voted for this
• holgerschurig 2mo ago
  > There are some levels of censorship Except that here is no censorship to be seen. A censor was a state/government official that approved material before it was allowed to be published. It started to become a thing after the printing press revolutionized publishing. You had it in monarchies but also republics (e.g. during Napoleons oppressive regime over europe). And even in recent time, e.g. in socialist 1) countries they had embedded "party secretairs" that checked stuff. So, censorship as a) from the government and b) checked before publishing to the general public. In capitalism or --- what we actually usually have --- a social market economy a company is free to get into contracts or not. So if some company say "I don't want to do a contract with people creating XYZ apps" ... than that's not censorship. It's not from the government and no check process before the publishing process happens. It is just freedom ... the freedom of the company in this case. In some countries the freedom to engage into a contract or not is sometimes limited, e.g. if some service is very important (like electric power, water, banking). But a source code hosting site won't qualify for this. Executing your own freedom isn't censorship. If e.g. Fox News decides to not broadcast 1:1 a statement of the CCP made ... then this isn't censorship. But if a US republican regime says "You can't publish info on homosexuality in school books" and some government entity checks these books ... than that's censorship. 1) I mean real socialist ex-countries like GDR or USSR, not what some US people that never heard about "means of production" call socialist, like FRG
• TZubiri 2mo ago
  I don't know what the actual stance is, and what counts as cryptocurrency or why the decision was made. But I tried clicking on the link cited in the OP that would explain this ( https://forum.codeberg.org/d/82-taking-a-stance-against-cryptocurrency https://forum.codeberg.org/d/82-taking-a-stance-against-cryp... ) and it got 404. And getting a 404 on a host that's supposed to host code, now that is completely unacceptable and makes you want to stay far away indeed.
  • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    The forum is only for members of the non-profit. I'm guessing the page is 404 because we are not dues-paying members, which is reasonable.
    • TZubiri 2mo ago
      should be 5xx then
      • selfhoster1312 2mo ago
        Not in fact. On systems with permissions/privileges, you always return a 404 when a page does exist but the user doesn't have permission. Because sometimes leaking the existence of an item is a problem in itself.
        • TZubiri 2mo ago
          I get the idea, but empirically, we know of the existence of that item, it's clearly very public, at least you and I have access to the fact that it exists. On the security spectrum I'm quite schizoid, but I'd say that's too much security. Note, curiously enough, the companies I've seen have this level of paranoid defensive security, is Microsoft. Try to send an ICMP ping to servers of different companies, you'll notice that Microsoft servers don't respond to pings. Just thought it's funny that one of the most closed source companies coincides with a source code repo on secops philosophy.
  • 2mo ago
• mfru 2mo ago
  They held an internal discussion amongst members and decided democratically which stance to take.
• arkh 2mo ago
  > “you can’t do crimes on our servers”, “you can’t host malware on our servers” So most of the cryptocurrency projects.