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.
> 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?
I think we can all agree that wikimedia is a net positive in the world.
Should Wikimedia take funds from the Kremlin, North Korea and Drug cartels, or should they have limits on ethical sources of funding?
You don't have to answer what you would do, but it is 100% legitimate for them to choose to have clear, written guidelines on what funds they ethically agree to accept.
It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles, in North Korean won or in the form of legal drug caches.
It's not about the source, but the means of the payment. I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa.
I didn't say it was the same, just that they can choose to draw a line somewhere.
> It's more equivalent to accepting donations in roubles
And many are in fact drawing the line at that.
> I can imagine people accepting money from dubious sources, but not via dubious means and vice-versa
Agreed, though I think that once you start looking into ethical funding "why not both" is going to be a common position.
See https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
Look up block lattice tech - it's powerful stuff.
- Carl Sagan
But scratch the surface and peer underneath, and you can see what it truly is.
We don't laugh at the people who started the ponzi schemes. We don't laugh at the people that lost their money and learned their lesson.
No, we laugh at the people who despite the clearest of clear headed reasoning still insist on wrapping their logic tighter than a pretzel. We may not all do it publically -- even though there are those that do -- but we do laugh, and are amazed how people got sucked into a tech cult.
Access to the world's knowledge and people defend their ignorance like this, smh.
Name two?
Its probably one of the most used cryptocurrencies for normal transactions, as most darkweb marketplaces use it.
For some abnormal definition of "normal", ok.
Source: https://www.monero.how/how-long-do-monero-transactions-take
I tried to buy a pizza from Dominos last week. Order online, pick up in person and pay with cash. Should have been simple, but it devolved into 5 minutes of Domino's employees trying to figure out "who's on cash?" (Had the credentials to open the cash drawer.) That person was apparently taking a smoke break, but when they came back it still took them another minute of furious hollywood hacker style keyboard pounding at the POS systems (accidental dual acronym of 'Point of Sale' and 'Piece of Shit'?) to open the cash drawer and give me my $1.20 change. Great job guys.
If you forgive me for being a little conspiratorial, I think point of sale systems must be designed to streamline credit card payments while artificially stalling cash transactions, as part of the financial industry's war against the cash economy.
you're somewhat right about the POS thing. a system like clover, for example, takes credit cards on the main unit, but the cash drawer is an add-on
That much seems certain. Switching to bitcoin to avoid the [artificial] annoyances of cash is like jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire.
But this doesn't explain why it's so hard for even the employee with the cash drawer credentials to open the drawer in a timely manner. They go full hackerman on the keyboard, scratching their head and cussing at the computer with utterances about the value of technology that would make the unabomber proud. It seems obvious to me the workflow for opening the cash drawer is inexcusably broken.
Block lattice tech is very cool. It's been around for over 6 years now, but even here, people seem not to realize that it exists and is fully functional.
So. Block lattice tech: real or Malarkey?
Are we speaking relative to fiat here? .... Lol.
Besides, there were many attempts at fair distributions, so you're simply wrong there. My favorite, Nano, distributed small amounts to people who solved captchas between 2015 and 2017.
But so far crypto has created wealth inequality which is way worse than that in fiat. Yes, there have been attempts at fair distribution, but to re-iterate my point above, they would need to spread distribution over a long timespan (gold has been distributed over millenia).