A scam in my book has one or more of the following properties:
- pre-mined (a part) off all tokes (like ETH ~70%) [1]
- has a team that will "rug pull" the users of their coin (think ONEcoin) [2]
- Is only paying lip-service to being decentralized (think again ETH) [3]
Also, who cares where the money comes from? I believe TOR is a project worthy of sponsoring...
[1] https://etherscan.io/stat/supply [2] https://cryptotips.eu/en/blog/the-onecoin-scam/ [3] https://decrypt.co/44321/70-of-ethereum-nodes-are-hosted-on-...
Tor is already seen in a bad light for being used for illicit activity, terrorism, illegal drugs, etc. We can have and fund tools that enhances privacy without endorsing or taking money from a so called 'cryptocurrency' that exists to distribute fake internet dark web tokens.
You're contradicting yourself many times in this thread.
I explicitly do not call them currencies because they cannot be used as such in the real world. All these tokens are extremely volatile and always used by speculators which makes them useless to be used as a currency.
It is fake money that is being cashed out for fiat money on these unregulated token exchanges, not to mention the decentralised ones.
As I said, they aren't useful at all in the real world legally, only on unregulated exchanges where only mostly criminals are able to swap their tokens for fiat from their scores of ransomware raids and scams.
I would be in favour of regulations needing to kill this part off as Monero and Zcash isn't accepted on most of them. Not to mention you cannot even pay your taxes with these crypto tokens.
Perhaps instead of spreading even more ink around you could go into why you think this is the case. As it stands, the reader can only conclude you are angry - nothing else.
Other voices such as Luke [0] explain in vastly more than a HN thread.
[0] https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-ag...
It acts as an endorsement and emboldens the cryptobros, enthusiasts and fans to pump the price of the token.
On the crypto tokens, there are tons of reasons not to use them as I have mentioned on this thread and others have mentioned as well. [0]
[0] https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-ag...
Their use case just happens to be purchasing drugs and other illicit products off deep web marketplaces. Or receiving payments for ransomware.
I am sure there are other grants that I have missed out but the solution is there.
We've seen in recent years that fiat payment systems are ran by bad actors, that will on a whim revoke access to their systems to any entity they deem "problematic", even if no laws have been broken.
Crypto allows entities to freely exchange money without having to worry about passing some arbitrary purity test or getting witch-hunted into oblivion.
[0] https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-ag...
He acknowledges that every single digital transaction you make can be seen by banks, for example, and yet does not propose an alternative solution. Credit card data is among the most valuable, and sold many times over to advertisers.
Do you personally think that that is a problem worth figuring out how to solve? If you don’t, it’s going to be hard to see the point. Similar to how we don’t need encryption because we have nothing to hide.
This website [0] chronicles all what is going on in web3 and this site is an excellent rebuttal of the entire space [1]
You didn’t answer my second question about whether you (yes, you, not Stephen Diehl) think that having a private way to transact online is important. Do you?
The next question for you is a little more philosophical – say cryptocurrency is bad, evil and should be “gotten rid of”. What do you propose we do about that? Ban Proof of Work? Yell about it online and pretend that’s going to make it go away? Nothing I have heard about “what to do about it” quite makes sense. I think the actual answer is going to involve convincing people of things – people who work in cryptocurrency. Unilateral critics are working pretty hard against themselves in that regard.
The overall stance reminds me of people who think Facebook or Spotify are evil – they very well may be, but they provided such a massive utility to the world that the ideas are not going away (a social network connecting most humans on earth and an instantly accessible database of most music ever recorded). You have to fix what is out there, because you can’t really put the genie back in the bottle.
The privacy tokens will be first, Monero, ZCash, etc, they will be completely banned and made illegal due to this, (why does Coinbase still not allow these tokens?)
Next, we need to crackdown tighter on the exchange ramps, we only have to look at the Tether fraud [0] that is happening, then the crackdown will begin on the whole space.
Then the crash will happen from there and the fallout would be terrible for people who bought these now worthless casino chips. So maybe that crypto will still exist but way less people will use them, especially the privacy ones.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-my...
Only time will tell. In the meantime, I am happy that this project can get any funding from wherever it can. Especially, since open source is a thankless and typically paid-less job.
There is nothing wrong with calling it what it really is. A scam. Complete fact. I can cite countless sources that wouldn't fit this comment box, but instead I point to alternatives as others have asked. [0] [1]
As I said before, solutions exist already outside of accepting and endorsing crypto scam token projects.
[0] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2021-12-09-news-rust-f...
Rather than demanding them to change, why not find a way to help secure them a source of less objectionable funding.
This isn't minor, Wikimedia [2] is also asking the same thing of their project and they shouldn't use or endorse these crypto tokens, same thing as Tor.
[0] https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/2021-12-09-news-rust-f...
[1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/what-we-fund/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_ac...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_ac... is a proposal with what looks like extremely divided voting; I'm not seeing where it was ratified? So Wikimedia is not asking that, someone suggested that Wikimedia should ask that.
And most people actually support the motion to stop accepting them, despite the division it is the correct decision.
I only hope that Tor does the same.
https://blog.torproject.org/transparency-openness-and-our-20...