Taking a stand against cryptocurrency/blockchain #794

Closed
opened 3 weeks ago by scy · 33 comments
scy commented 3 weeks ago

The folks at SourceHut recently announced upcoming changes to their Terms of Service: Starting 2023, they will no longer allow cryptocurrency and blockchain projects on their site. I was deeply impressed with how clear and powerful their statement was (emphasis mine):

SourceHut is planning to roll out updates to our terms of service, effective in 2023. The changes most likely to impact users is the prohibition of cryptocurrency- or blockchain-related projects on SourceHut.

These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion. These projects often encourage large-scale energy waste and electronics waste, which contributes to the declining health of Earth’s environment. The presence of these projects on SourceHut exposes new victims to these scams and is harmful to the reputation of SourceHut and its community.

We recognize that the basic idea of a blockchain, as it were, may be generally useful. However, most projects which market themselves with blockchain technology are subject to the same social ills as cryptocurrency. Consequently, we have chosen to include “blockchain” related projects in this ban for the time being.

We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support.

Projects which seek out cryptocurrency donations are strongly discouraged from doing so, but will not be affected by this change.

I’m gonna be honest with you: I want Codeberg to issue a similar statement.

Of course that’s not for me to decide. So I’ve brought it up on Mastodon. Codeberg’s account replied:

We're no fans of cryptofoo either, and don't accept crypto donations for a reason. As of today, we haven't received reports of fraudulent activity or discovered it ourselves, so we are currently not taking action against such projects, also because no one brought up the debate on our platform (yet).

But we'll keep an eye on that, for sure.

Sooo … I’m bringing the debate up now. Because if we take a stand now, we can discourage those projects from coming here in the first place.

Also, I’d like to point out that SourceHut’s statement was not about “fraudulent activity”. Their point is not “if a certain project is doing something bad, we’ll ban them”. Because that goes without saying.

What SourceHut is saying is “Most, if not all, cryptocurrency and blockchain projects are not compatible with our values as a community. They’re harmful to our users, our reputation, and frankly most of earth’s population, and we don’t want them here.”

And I think this should be the general direction of Codeberg’s statement, too.

The folks at SourceHut recently [announced](https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurrency/) upcoming changes to their Terms of Service: Starting 2023, they will no longer allow cryptocurrency and blockchain projects on their site. I was deeply impressed with how clear and powerful their statement was (emphasis mine): > SourceHut is planning to roll out updates to our terms of service, effective in 2023. The changes most likely to impact users is the prohibition of cryptocurrency- or blockchain-related projects on SourceHut. > > **These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion. These projects often encourage large-scale energy waste and electronics waste, which contributes to the declining health of Earth’s environment. The presence of these projects on SourceHut exposes new victims to these scams and is harmful to the reputation of SourceHut and its community.** > > We recognize that the basic idea of a blockchain, as it were, may be generally useful. However, **most projects which market themselves with blockchain technology are subject to the same social ills as cryptocurrency. Consequently, we have chosen to include “blockchain” related projects in this ban** for the time being. > > We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support. > > Projects which seek out cryptocurrency donations are strongly discouraged from doing so, but will not be affected by this change. I’m gonna be honest with you: I want Codeberg to issue a similar statement. Of course that’s not for me to decide. So I’ve brought it up on Mastodon. Codeberg’s account [replied](https://social.anoxinon.de/@Codeberg/109316382790878381): > We're no fans of cryptofoo either, and don't accept crypto donations for a reason. As of today, we haven't received reports of fraudulent activity or discovered it ourselves, so we are currently not taking action against such projects, also because no one brought up the debate on our platform (yet). > > But we'll keep an eye on that, for sure. Sooo … I’m bringing the debate up now. Because if we take a stand now, we can discourage those projects from coming here in the first place. Also, I’d like to point out that SourceHut’s statement was not about “fraudulent activity”. Their point is not “if a certain project is doing something bad, we’ll ban them”. Because that goes without saying. What SourceHut is saying is “Most, if not all, cryptocurrency and blockchain projects are not compatible with our values as a community. They’re harmful to our users, our reputation, and frankly most of earth’s population, and we don’t want them here.” And I think this should be the general direction of Codeberg’s statement, too.
Gusted closed this issue 3 weeks ago
Gusted reopened this issue 3 weeks ago
Collaborator

I think codeberg would need a general members vote for such a change to the TOS.

I'd also imaging it pretty difficult finding a consensus and generally applicable rules on what constitutes "related to cryptocurrency or blockchain". I.e. what about things like web3 is going great or Moxie's NFT explorations.

If such a vote goes through we'd also need to plan for additional moderation ressources to deal with ensuing reports and appeals, etc.

Personally, I think I'd stick with kicking out harmful and fraudulent projects, but also fine if the vote would go the other way. Maybe I mainly don't have any energy for the ToS discussion again :-/.

I think codeberg would need a general members vote for such a change to the TOS. I'd also imaging it pretty difficult finding a consensus and generally applicable rules on what constitutes "related to cryptocurrency or blockchain". I.e. what about things like [web3 is going great](https://github.com/molly/web3-is-going-great) or Moxie's [NFT explorations](https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html). If such a vote goes through we'd also need to plan for additional moderation ressources to deal with ensuing reports and appeals, etc. Personally, I think I'd stick with kicking out harmful and fraudulent projects, but also fine if the vote would go the other way. Maybe I mainly don't have any energy for the ToS discussion again :-/.

I beg to differ with cryptocurrencies in regard to the environmental aspect: Proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies definetly have a bad impact on the environment because of wasted CPU power and hardware, while cryptocurrencies that use Proof-of-stake or some other proof mechanism that doesn't need complex calculations don't have that bad impact. They may have other problems.

Maybe Codeberg could add „cryptoscamming“ and „promotion of cryptoscamming“ to the list of unwanted behavior once a clear definition of that has been created. That could remove all the unwanted projects while a project that develops a cryptowallet application could be allowed to stay.

I beg to differ with cryptocurrencies in regard to the environmental aspect: Proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies definetly have a bad impact on the environment because of wasted CPU power and hardware, while cryptocurrencies that use Proof-of-stake or some other proof mechanism that doesn't need complex calculations don't have that bad impact. They may have other problems. Maybe Codeberg could add „cryptoscamming“ and „promotion of cryptoscamming“ to the list of unwanted behavior once a clear definition of that has been created. That could remove all the unwanted projects while a project that develops a cryptowallet application could be allowed to stay.

To debat the first point of the environmental effect of cryptocurrency this is inferior to fiat money electric consumption of all the electricity of all the bank buildings in the world. There is also the cotton production for the notes which needs pesticides to vast fields of earth. Also, the energy consumption to forge coins is very great. And for coins to be extracted from earth, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make such a task.
Talking about fossil fuels, what about the amount of fossil fuels needs for coins and notes to reach your nearest ATM and banks? That is great too.

So no, cryptocurrency is more environmental friendly than physical notes and physical coins.

Regarding the point that cryptocurrency is a bad thing, is a stupid argument. All types of people use cryptocurrency, not just the people regarded as bad. The same way that bad people use coins and notes, bad people use cryptocurrency. No one here is banning coins and notes from your website because bad people use coins and notes. In fact you accept donations.

In regarding cryptocurrency software as a bad thing, you are violating the first principle of Free Software (which is principle 0.) which is "The freedom to run the program for any purpose.". So Codeberg no longer supports Free Software in doing this type of ban.

Those that say that crypto is bad, are like witch-hunters who say that people are bad.

"Crypto is bad" argument has no basis.

Sourcehut is not a place for freedom.

To debat the first point of the environmental effect of cryptocurrency this is inferior to fiat money electric consumption of all the electricity of all the bank buildings in the world. There is also the cotton production for the notes which needs pesticides to vast fields of earth. Also, the energy consumption to forge coins is very great. And for coins to be extracted from earth, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make such a task. Talking about fossil fuels, what about the amount of fossil fuels needs for coins and notes to reach your nearest ATM and banks? That is great too. So no, cryptocurrency is more environmental friendly than physical notes and physical coins. Regarding the point that cryptocurrency is a bad thing, is a stupid argument. All types of people use cryptocurrency, not just the people regarded as bad. The same way that bad people use coins and notes, bad people use cryptocurrency. No one here is banning coins and notes from your website because bad people use coins and notes. In fact you accept donations. In regarding cryptocurrency software as a bad thing, you are violating the first principle of Free Software (which is principle 0.) which is "The freedom to run the program for any purpose.". So Codeberg no longer supports Free Software in doing this type of ban. Those that say that crypto is bad, are like witch-hunters who say that people are bad. "Crypto is bad" argument has no basis. Sourcehut is not a place for freedom.

The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake.

The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake.
Owner

I'm not going to speak officially in my position at Codeberg, but want to share a very personal opinion, because this matter is important to me, actually.

I found blockchain "interesting", back in 2016, and I hoped that "the problems" could be solved some time in the future. But I haven't seen solutions to those problems I consider problems, only solutions to problems that don't really exist.

The crypto-evolution went from the proof-of-burned-fossil-fuel to proof-of-created-e-waste and some hybrid solutions in between, all damaging the environment one way or another.. Each time I see someone talking about "the big crypto-innovation", it's just another scam with yet-another-series-of-problems, and someone claiming again that "the impact on the environment is not that important", because "others don't optimize their code either". This includes all the "lite" approaches I have seen (although I don't claim I've seen them all, because I got bored over the time and don't bother looking at those I encounter recent days).

I actually don't want to support these actions, and I don't think that the world needs more NFT and more crypto coins and their wallets and crypto-trader-API integrations and all this kind of stuff.

On the other hand, I don't want to restrict people here with their small hobby projects, if they just think it's great what they do, and they don't actually do weird actions ... what if someone is a crypto user and hosts a theme or bugfix fork for their wallet? Should this be banned, because of crypto relation? What about ... research projects, that eventually come to the conclusion that crypto is bullshit? What about someone doing experiments with cryptocurrencies to learn more about the resource usage? Should we generally ban this? What about me, six years ago, hacking some PHP script to simulate block generation for a talk in school, demonstrating how much power a computer needs to generate bitcoin blocks?

If the amount of crypto projects hosted on Codeberg is actually low and does not consume many resources, we might just want to issue a clear statement that we, as Codeberg, don't like this stuff and that we'll keep an eye out. I suppose that pro-crypto folks would mostly turn away from Codeberg then.

We can also think about the necessity to put up disclaimers (like necessary to malware / dangerous software if used for research purpose).

If we have a lot of crypto projects over here, and more moving in due to the announcement of SourceHut ... well, I would not object to following their reasoning and restricting them here, too.

I'm not going to speak officially in my position at Codeberg, but want to share a very personal opinion, because this matter is important to me, actually. I found blockchain "interesting", back in 2016, and I hoped that "the problems" could be solved some time in the future. But I haven't seen solutions to those problems I consider problems, only solutions to problems that don't really exist. The crypto-evolution went from the proof-of-burned-fossil-fuel to proof-of-created-e-waste and some hybrid solutions in between, all damaging the environment one way or another.. Each time I see someone talking about "the big crypto-innovation", it's just another scam with yet-another-series-of-problems, and someone claiming again that "the impact on the environment is not that important", because "others don't optimize their code either". This includes all the "lite" approaches I have seen (although I don't claim I've seen them all, because I got bored over the time and don't bother looking at those I encounter recent days). I actually don't want to support these actions, and I don't think that the world needs more NFT and more crypto coins and their wallets and crypto-trader-API integrations and all this kind of stuff. On the other hand, I don't want to restrict people here with their small hobby projects, if they just think it's great what they do, and they don't actually do weird actions ... what if someone is a crypto user and hosts a theme or bugfix fork for their wallet? Should this be banned, because of crypto relation? What about ... research projects, that eventually come to the conclusion that crypto is bullshit? What about someone doing experiments with cryptocurrencies to learn more about the resource usage? Should we generally ban this? What about me, six years ago, hacking some PHP script to simulate block generation for a talk in school, demonstrating how much power a computer needs to generate bitcoin blocks? If the amount of crypto projects hosted on Codeberg is actually low and does not consume many resources, we might just want to issue a clear statement that we, as Codeberg, don't like this stuff and that we'll keep an eye out. I suppose that pro-crypto folks would mostly turn away from Codeberg then. We can also think about the necessity to put up disclaimers (like necessary to malware / dangerous software if used for research purpose). If we have a lot of crypto projects over here, and more moving in due to the announcement of SourceHut ... well, I would not object to following their reasoning and restricting them here, too.

The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake.

Maybe you should make that transition of Bitcoin to Proof-of-stake. Ohhh, sorry you can't modify Bitcoin code because Codeberg would not allow you to have access to Bitcoin's software.... So, you are favouring my last post to this thread.

> The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake. Maybe you should make that transition of Bitcoin to Proof-of-stake. Ohhh, sorry you can't modify Bitcoin code because Codeberg would not allow you to have access to Bitcoin's software.... So, you are favouring my last post to this thread.

@dacs-git

This is more about preventing cryptoscammers from using Codeberg, not about banning cryptocurrencies from Codeberg.

@dacs-git This is more about preventing cryptoscammers from using Codeberg, not about banning cryptocurrencies from Codeberg.

@ncc1988 That is not what it says. In practice, that is the same thing to Codeberg.

@ncc1988 That is not what it says. In practice, that is the same thing to Codeberg.

I see that people have observed that there are (real and perceived) problems with cryptocurrencies. Do you honestly think that by banning developers and cryptocurrency experts from this site, you will improve the situation?

"If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support."-Is there any evidence that SourceHut support is going to look at cryptocurrency and blockchains projects fairly without any bias? SourceHut has already shown a great deal of bias with its preemptive ban of cryptocurrencies. Does a project have to be completely free from social problems in order for a developer to try to improve the project? What if the developers are trying to solve those social problems? Should developers be allowed to solve social problems and improve the situation?

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Developer of Circcash,

And yes, Circcash does solve the social problem of energy waste for cryptocurrencies, and by banning me, you are only guaranteeing that there will be more energy waste.

I see that people have observed that there are (real and perceived) problems with cryptocurrencies. Do you honestly think that by banning developers and cryptocurrency experts from this site, you will improve the situation? "If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support."-Is there any evidence that SourceHut support is going to look at cryptocurrency and blockchains projects fairly without any bias? SourceHut has already shown a great deal of bias with its preemptive ban of cryptocurrencies. Does a project have to be completely free from social problems in order for a developer to try to improve the project? What if the developers are trying to solve those social problems? Should developers be allowed to solve social problems and improve the situation? -Joseph Van Name Ph.D. Developer of Circcash, And yes, Circcash does solve the social problem of energy waste for cryptocurrencies, and by banning me, you are only guaranteeing that there will be more energy waste.
Collaborator

While I'd want to express my thoughts on cryptocurrencies and its technologies, Drew Devault has done so far better than I could and has cited the relevant sources.


I agree that Codeberg should make a statement, or rather an announcement, similar to Sourcehut, stating precisely "the prohibition of cryptocurrency- or blockchain-related projects." This is due to the fact that the majority of these projects violate ToS 2.1.5:

Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg.

Any reasonable person who has heard about cryptocurrencies (et al.) has also heard of its controversial side. I don't want Codeberg to be harmed by the poor reputation of the majority of those projects. To be clear, research and hobby projects clearly comply with that ToS clause.

As @fnetX points out, a clear statement (a reminder of the ToS) concerning this is preferable. Defining and establishing new rules specifically for cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related projects is a time-consuming undertaking. I'd rather see current ToS clauses applied to "fight" this.

PS. Please keep this discussion nice and on-topic, don't hurt or attack each others. We are all humans.

While I'd want to express my thoughts on cryptocurrencies and its technologies, Drew Devault [has done so far better](https://mirror.drewdevault.com/cryptocurrency.pdf) than I could and has cited the relevant sources. ---- I agree that Codeberg should make a statement, or rather an announcement, similar to Sourcehut, stating precisely "the prohibition of cryptocurrency- or blockchain-related projects." This is due to the fact that the majority of these projects violate ToS 2.1.5: > Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg. Any reasonable person who has heard about cryptocurrencies (et al.) has also heard of its controversial side. I don't want Codeberg to be harmed by the poor reputation of the majority of those projects. To be clear, research and hobby projects clearly comply with that ToS clause. As @fnetX points out, a clear statement (a reminder of the ToS) concerning this is preferable. Defining and establishing new rules specifically for cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related projects is a time-consuming undertaking. I'd rather see current ToS clauses applied to "fight" this. PS. Please keep this discussion nice and on-topic, don't hurt or attack each others. We are all humans.

Hackers have a bad reputation. Will Codeberg ban hacker projects?

Hackers have a bad reputation. Will Codeberg ban hacker projects?
Owner

Thank you, Gusted. Keeping a nice tone is very important, and I'm addressing both this debate here as well as the social media thread about this issue (but not going to reply there).

First of all, let me be clear: At Codeberg, we try to find the best compromise for all our users, and instead of simply announcing changes, we're glad to see different aspects and opinions about a matter.

But some users are making this very hard. If we start a discussion about a topic, statements alike "You're bad, because you are considering x" is not a nice behaviour. I'll just drop these arguments in my head, because they are pointless and unfair. They refuse a discussion because the outcome might not be to their liking. Please don't choose a democratic platform, if you don't like to respect the opinion of others.

Similarly, I consider it pointless if a user registers at Codeberg, just to drop a comment here. If I don't see further activity of such users, I don't consider them "our userbase", because they likely just joined because of the social media heat towards this issue.

Please let's collect arguments for and against such a change and ideas for potential compromises which address the discussed issue and objections towards it, and then call for a vote among Codeberg e.V. members.

Thank you, Gusted. Keeping a nice tone is very important, and I'm addressing both this debate here as well as the social media thread about this issue (but not going to reply there). First of all, let me be clear: At Codeberg, we try to find the best compromise for all our users, and instead of simply announcing changes, we're glad to see different aspects and opinions about a matter. But some users are making this very hard. If we start a discussion about a topic, statements alike "You're bad, because you are considering x" is not a nice behaviour. I'll just drop these arguments in my head, because they are pointless and unfair. They refuse a discussion because the outcome *might* not be to their liking. Please don't choose a democratic platform, if you don't like to respect the opinion of others. Similarly, I consider it pointless if a user registers at Codeberg, just to drop a comment here. If I don't see further activity of such users, I don't consider them "our userbase", because they likely just joined because of the social media heat towards this issue. Please let's collect arguments for and against such a change and ideas for potential compromises which address the discussed issue and objections towards it, and then call for a vote among Codeberg e.V. members.

We need people to develop cryptocurrencies without being harassed, banned, and shamed because
cryptocurrencies can save countless lives. Let me explain.

We currently do not know the origin of the Sars-Cov-2 virus. The US senate recently produced a report stating that the Sars-Cov-2 virus most likely originated from the bio-safety level 4 lab (BSL-4) in Wuhan, China. If Sars-Cov-2 came from nature, then it is likely that we would have found the origin of Sars-Cov-2 already, but if Sars-Cov-2 genetically engineered in a laboratory from some other virus, then it is likely that someone would have found a natural animal reserviour of Sars-Cov-2 where Sars-Cov-2 was circulating before humans caught it in 2019.

With cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Circcash, we can make it very easy for BSL-4 labs to prove using cryptographic timestamps that all their data is authentic in the sense that the data has not been modified after the time shown on the timestamp. The BSL-4 labs can do this simply by taking the cryptographic hash or Merkle root of the data and then posting that hash or Merkle root on a blockchain like the Bitcoin blockchain; such a hash or Merkle root posted on a blockchain shall be . This procedure does not compromise the privacy of the BSL-4 lab since the cryptographic hashes or Merkle roots reveal no information about the data being hashed. It is very inexpensive to post the timestamps on blockchains like the Bitcoin blockchain, and it is also very inexpensive to verify that the timestamp is authentic, and that the data has not been fabricated after the time of the timestamp.

If BSL-4 labs were required to post cryptographic timestamps of all their data on blockchains, then investigators will be able to know exactly what went on in those BSL-4 labs and the BSL-4 labs would not be able to fabricate any data nor will they be able to delete any data without making it exceedingly obvious to investigators that they are either too incompetent to handle the data or deliberately have destroyed the data.

Without cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Circcash, it would be harder for BSL-4 labs to cryptographically prove that their data is authentic. Cryptocurrencies therefore can enable investigators to investigate any lab leak hypothesis, and this could probably prevent the next pandemic. Bio labs would not want to do risky research if they knew that they would be properly investigated using blockchains. And if there is another lab leak, then a proper investigation could result in a global culture that actually takes bio-safety seriously.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone here would give any legitimate reason why this is not a very good use case for cryptocurrencies, but the people here would probably ignore what I am saying which is quite sad.

We need people to develop cryptocurrencies without being harassed, banned, and shamed because cryptocurrencies can save countless lives. Let me explain. We currently do not know the origin of the Sars-Cov-2 virus. The US senate recently produced a report stating that the Sars-Cov-2 virus most likely originated from the bio-safety level 4 lab (BSL-4) in Wuhan, China. If Sars-Cov-2 came from nature, then it is likely that we would have found the origin of Sars-Cov-2 already, but if Sars-Cov-2 genetically engineered in a laboratory from some other virus, then it is likely that someone would have found a natural animal reserviour of Sars-Cov-2 where Sars-Cov-2 was circulating before humans caught it in 2019. With cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Circcash, we can make it very easy for BSL-4 labs to prove using cryptographic timestamps that all their data is authentic in the sense that the data has not been modified after the time shown on the timestamp. The BSL-4 labs can do this simply by taking the cryptographic hash or Merkle root of the data and then posting that hash or Merkle root on a blockchain like the Bitcoin blockchain; such a hash or Merkle root posted on a blockchain shall be . This procedure does not compromise the privacy of the BSL-4 lab since the cryptographic hashes or Merkle roots reveal no information about the data being hashed. It is very inexpensive to post the timestamps on blockchains like the Bitcoin blockchain, and it is also very inexpensive to verify that the timestamp is authentic, and that the data has not been fabricated after the time of the timestamp. If BSL-4 labs were required to post cryptographic timestamps of all their data on blockchains, then investigators will be able to know exactly what went on in those BSL-4 labs and the BSL-4 labs would not be able to fabricate any data nor will they be able to delete any data without making it exceedingly obvious to investigators that they are either too incompetent to handle the data or deliberately have destroyed the data. Without cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Circcash, it would be harder for BSL-4 labs to cryptographically prove that their data is authentic. Cryptocurrencies therefore can enable investigators to investigate any lab leak hypothesis, and this could probably prevent the next pandemic. Bio labs would not want to do risky research if they knew that they would be properly investigated using blockchains. And if there is another lab leak, then a proper investigation could result in a global culture that actually takes bio-safety seriously. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone here would give any legitimate reason why this is not a very good use case for cryptocurrencies, but the people here would probably ignore what I am saying which is quite sad.
fnetX locked as Too heated and limited conversation to collaborators 3 weeks ago
Owner

I'm going to re-open this thread once the interest of social media attendees is over. We're getting off-topic.

If any Codeberg e.V. member here wants to continue in the meantime, feel free to open in the internal issue tracker.

I'm going to re-open this thread once the interest of social media attendees is over. We're getting off-topic. If any Codeberg e.V. member here wants to continue in the meantime, feel free to open in the internal issue tracker.
fnetX unlocked this conversation 2 weeks ago

I randomly remembered that this thread was going to be reopened, so I decided to hop back on here to remind you all that if you are honest people, you need to act like decent humans and respond to the objections that I have made. Think about it. You are deciding to ban an entire sector without thinking about this seriously enough and without even understanding what cryptocurrencies are about.

Sadly, people have a habit of refusing to respond or responding out of an arrogant and instinctive hatred instead of admitting that they are ignorant about a topic.

"Keeping a nice tone is very important"-Um. The people who just want to flat out ban cryptocurrency projects without even trying to understand them clearly do not have a nice tone. The arrogant laughing face emoji signifies a very impolite tone especially since nobody has yet responded to my objections there.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

-Creator of Circcash

I randomly remembered that this thread was going to be reopened, so I decided to hop back on here to remind you all that if you are honest people, you need to act like decent humans and **respond** to the objections that I have made. Think about it. You are deciding to ban an entire sector without thinking about this seriously enough and without even understanding what cryptocurrencies are about. Sadly, people have a habit of refusing to respond or responding out of an arrogant and instinctive hatred instead of admitting that they are ignorant about a topic. "Keeping a nice tone is very important"-Um. The people who just want to flat out ban cryptocurrency projects without even trying to understand them clearly do not have a nice tone. The arrogant laughing face emoji signifies a very impolite tone especially since nobody has yet responded to my objections there. -Joseph Van Name Ph.D. -Creator of Circcash

Looks like my watch notifications paid off then.

I intended to comment here, but you locked the thread two days earlier.

Let me make one thing clear here, I do not use Codeberg - this account was made a week ago just to comment here. I am an open-source developer of various projects on Github including software which interaxts with cryptocurrencies: https://github.com/ZenulAbidin

As it stands, I lose nothing by a Codeberg ban on crypto projects. However, other devs who have crypto code on Codeberg have everything to lose, so what I write is is for them, not for me.

Everyone - You know, this thread is called: "Taking a stand against cryptocurrency/blockchain", and it would be more accurate to call it "Taking a stand sgainst cryptocurrency/blockchain scams". Because that's what most of the idea behind this thread seems to be about.

It is quite trivial to get rid of blockchain/cryptocurrency scam projects online - using the Report Abuse button. This particular button has been fantastic on Github for taking down various scam copies of crypto projects. I assume you have such a button already - in that case, half of your problem is already solved.

Now that we have got the scams out of the way, let us deal with your second issue surrounding this topic: Excessive energy use of cryptocurrencies. Incidentially, I am also the creator of https://bitcoincleanup.com (NOT cleanupbitcoin). This is a website I made to challenge Greenpeace's and Chris Larsen's (the Ripple Labs co-founder who donated all that campaign money to Greenpease in the first place) false claims about crypto energy usage. They were claiming that if you "Change the Code", everything would be fine and Bitcoin's energy usage would go down.

Isn't it ironic, a crypto guy making a campaign against crypto. But all that is a different topic.

First of all, some cryptos like Ethereum are using Proof of Stake, which uses no energy, so this is a non-issue for them. You can't say: "Let's ban the projects of all Ethereum dApps on CodeBerg", because as of September - long before SourceHut contemplated any crypto ban - Ethereum does not even use enormous energy anymore.

Second, for Proof of Work cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - the myth of excessive energy use has been totally debunked on my website, I suggest you study it carefully. I will quote a few key points from the site:

Myth: Bitcoin uses as much energy as <country>

The IT, plane, car, transportation, and other industries must utilize large amounts of electricity for data centers, chemical or fuel generation, or heating, in order to provide their services. The same is true for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin needs to use a lot of energy so that its Proof of Work can prevent hackers from stealing people's bitcoins. So far it's been going great, compared to several Proof of Stake coins, which have been breached with 51% attacks.

Some people claim "We know crypto doesn’t need much energy to work." This is very ignorant because freedom from censorship is only possible in Proof of Work - transactions can still be embargoed in other algorithms.

That is to say, that the massive energy use serves to fend off attacks against the Bitcoin network in the same way that CloudFlare generates terabytes of traffic in the process of fending off bot attacks against websites. And incidentially, a lot of energy use from their networking infrastructure. But hey, I don't hear anyone complaining about Cloudflare's carbon footprint, do I? So why are cryptocurrencies so important? Because it's "useless" to you?

I could also make the argument that Cloudflare is useless to me because I do not use it on my website I just linked. But that would be a very ignorant statement, because thousands of businesses, including most of the Fortune 500 companies, rely on Cloudflare to protect their websites from DDoS attacks. It's very effective, and does the job. So its carbon footprint cannot be complained about.

As for Bitcoin and other Proof of Work cryptocurrencies, they server as a form of digital money for people who have no access to banks. This happens to include most of Africa and South America, just so you don't forget. Already in 2022, thousands of people rely on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to store their life savings and conduct day-to-day transactions, because their banking infrastructure is either unreliable and prone to failure, or it is corrupt and liable to funds theft by the respective governments. That is why a large percentage of the world population remains unbanked. So cryptocurrency is the prefect solution to them.

As you know, cryptocurrency relies on software to provide its networking and financial services. The protocols are hosted online, the wallet software are also hosted online, and in some cases the websites of the projects themselves are hosted in some open-source community repo online. Without this software, cryptocurrency cannot work, and the revolution that is providing financial access to so many ubanked people snce 2009 will grind to a halt.

To instantiate a ban of crypto projects just because you heard a few things you don't like about the industry is, at best, madness. It does two very bad things: First, the developers working on crypto projects on your site will have their work disrupted and they will have to migrate to a new webste. For what?

Second, it sends a negative signal across the industry that code hosting projects do not care about the mission statement that underlines most crypto projects - to provide financial access of money to everyone.

And you are doing this for what exactly?

To prevent crypto scams? Sorry, but even if all open source hosting sites like Github banned cryptocurrency projects this instant, there would still be crypto scams being perpretrated because the developers would just move to self-hosted Gitea.

Or is it as a protest against crypto's excessive energy use? Well we have already established that excessive energy usage is not useless when it is to protect services.

So, then, what benefit will banning crypto projects from Codeberg bring?

The only thing that will come out of this is crypto developers on you platform will be frustrated and will have to move their entire repo to another website. Is this really all that you want this proposal to bring about? Because I know that there is some sense of altruism in the goal of this proposal.

Unfortunately, that sense of altruism is misguided, for reasons I have explained above.

A version control platform is not supposed to make developers' lives difficult. It is supposed to make them easier.

If we were talking about banning malware projects, gambling projects, or adult projects, then you would be on to something here. But this is cryptocurrency, whose use is legal in all jurdistinctions - with the exception of a handful of nations who don't seem to like it at all, but I will leave them out of this discussion.

I completely agree with @jvanname that, and I quote: "We need people to develop cryptocurrencies without being harassed, banned, and shamed because cryptocurrencies can save countless lives."

Do you guys agree with this or no?

We are already protecting the rights of minority groups, sexual orientations, and activists. Is crypto really that malicious to you guys to go as far as believing that crypto developers need to be bothered?

Some of you believe SourceHut did "an incredibly brave thing" by banning crypto projects from its platform. But far from being brave, it is a misguided thing, and a very dangerous decision to make because it could sway other source control sites to harass crypto developers on their platforms. Do not enable repressive behavior.

Don't forget that the following is on your own homepage (emphasis mine):

Respect
Your data is not for sale. No third party cookies, no tracking. Hosted in the EU, we welcome the world.

So this means you welcome everyone except for crypto developers? As a privacy-focused source control site, I expected more inclusion to be granted to users.

My last remark, before closing this post, is one of history.

In the 1990s the NSA attempted to make distribution of strong cryptography software illegal. They failed. Why? Because everyone distributed the source code via different mediums such as CDs, books, coffee mugs and T-shirts.

You know, "crypto" got its name from cryptography. And also, many regulators and web services who similarly do not understand crypto properly also want to ban us. But our motto is: If you ban us in one place, we will appear in ten more places.

If you don't believe me, just look how many websites are hosting a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper ever since Craig Wright tried to sue bitcoin.org to take it down.

-Ali Sherief (Zenul_Abidin)

Looks like my watch notifications paid off then. I intended to comment here, but you locked the thread two days earlier. Let me make one thing clear here, I do not use Codeberg - this account was made a week ago just to comment here. I am an open-source developer of various projects on Github including software which interaxts with cryptocurrencies: https://github.com/ZenulAbidin As it stands, I lose nothing by a Codeberg ban on crypto projects. However, other devs who have crypto code on Codeberg have everything to lose, so what I write is is for them, not for me. Everyone - You know, this thread is called: "Taking a stand against cryptocurrency/blockchain", and it would be more accurate to call it "Taking a stand sgainst cryptocurrency/blockchain scams". Because that's what most of the idea behind this thread seems to be about. It is quite trivial to get rid of blockchain/cryptocurrency scam projects online - using the Report Abuse button. This particular button has been fantastic on Github for taking down various scam copies of crypto projects. I assume you have such a button already - in that case, half of your problem is already solved. Now that we have got the scams out of the way, let us deal with your second issue surrounding this topic: Excessive energy use of cryptocurrencies. Incidentially, I am also the creator of https://bitcoincleanup.com (NOT cleanupbitcoin). This is a website I made to challenge Greenpeace's and Chris Larsen's (the Ripple Labs co-founder who donated all that campaign money to Greenpease in the first place) false claims about crypto energy usage. They were claiming that if you "Change the Code", everything would be fine and Bitcoin's energy usage would go down. Isn't it ironic, a crypto guy making a campaign against crypto. But all that is a different topic. First of all, some cryptos like Ethereum are using Proof of Stake, which uses no energy, so this is a non-issue for them. You can't say: "Let's ban the projects of all Ethereum dApps on CodeBerg", because as of September - long before SourceHut contemplated any crypto ban - Ethereum does not even use enormous energy anymore. Second, for Proof of Work cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - the myth of excessive energy use has been totally debunked on my website, I suggest you study it carefully. I will quote a few key points from the site: > Myth: Bitcoin uses as much energy as \<country\> > > The IT, plane, car, transportation, and other industries must utilize large amounts of electricity for data centers, chemical or fuel generation, or heating, in order to provide their services. The same is true for Bitcoin. > > Bitcoin needs to use a lot of energy so that its Proof of Work can prevent hackers from stealing people's bitcoins. So far it's been going great, compared to several Proof of Stake coins, which have been breached with 51% attacks. > > Some people claim "We know crypto doesn’t need much energy to work." This is very ignorant because freedom from censorship is only possible in Proof of Work - transactions can still be embargoed in other algorithms. That is to say, that the massive energy use serves to fend off attacks against the Bitcoin network in the same way that CloudFlare generates terabytes of traffic in the process of fending off bot attacks against websites. And incidentially, a lot of energy use from their networking infrastructure. But hey, I don't hear anyone complaining about Cloudflare's carbon footprint, do I? So why are cryptocurrencies so important? Because it's "useless" to you? I could also make the argument that Cloudflare is useless to me because I do not use it on my website I just linked. But that would be a very ignorant statement, because thousands of businesses, including most of the Fortune 500 companies, rely on Cloudflare to protect their websites from DDoS attacks. It's very effective, and does the job. So its carbon footprint cannot be complained about. As for Bitcoin and other Proof of Work cryptocurrencies, they server as a form of digital money for people who have no access to banks. This happens to include most of Africa and South America, just so you don't forget. Already in 2022, thousands of people rely on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to store their life savings and conduct day-to-day transactions, because their banking infrastructure is either unreliable and prone to failure, or it is corrupt and liable to funds theft by the respective governments. That is why a large percentage of the world population remains unbanked. So cryptocurrency is the prefect solution to them. As you know, cryptocurrency relies on software to provide its networking and financial services. The protocols are hosted online, the wallet software are also hosted online, and in some cases the websites of the projects themselves are hosted in some open-source community repo online. Without this software, cryptocurrency cannot work, and the revolution that is providing financial access to so many ubanked people snce 2009 will grind to a halt. To instantiate a ban of crypto projects just because you heard a few things you don't like about the industry is, at best, madness. It does two very bad things: First, the developers working on crypto projects on your site will have their work disrupted and they will have to migrate to a new webste. For what? Second, it sends a negative signal across the industry that code hosting projects do not care about the mission statement that underlines most crypto projects - to provide financial access of money to everyone. And you are doing this for what exactly? To prevent crypto scams? Sorry, but even if all open source hosting sites like Github banned cryptocurrency projects this instant, there would **still** be crypto scams being perpretrated because the developers would just move to self-hosted Gitea. Or is it as a protest against crypto's excessive energy use? Well we have already established that excessive energy usage is not useless when it is to protect services. So, then, what benefit will banning crypto projects from Codeberg bring? The only thing that will come out of this is crypto developers on you platform will be frustrated and will have to move their entire repo to another website. Is this really all that you want this proposal to bring about? Because I know that there is some sense of altruism in the goal of this proposal. Unfortunately, that sense of altruism is misguided, for reasons I have explained above. *A version control platform is not supposed to make developers' lives difficult. It is supposed to make them easier.* If we were talking about banning malware projects, gambling projects, or adult projects, then you would be on to something here. But this is cryptocurrency, whose use is legal in all jurdistinctions - with the exception of a handful of nations who don't seem to like it at all, but I will leave them out of this discussion. I completely agree with @jvanname that, and I quote: "We need people to develop cryptocurrencies without being harassed, banned, and shamed because cryptocurrencies can save countless lives." Do you guys agree with this or no? We are already protecting the rights of minority groups, sexual orientations, and activists. Is crypto really that malicious to you guys to go as far as believing that crypto developers need to be bothered? Some of you believe SourceHut did "an incredibly brave thing" by banning crypto projects from its platform. But far from being brave, it is a misguided thing, and a very dangerous decision to make because it could sway other source control sites to harass crypto developers on their platforms. Do not enable repressive behavior. Don't forget that the following is on your own homepage (emphasis mine): > Respect > Your data is not for sale. No third party cookies, no tracking. Hosted in the EU, **we welcome the world.** So this means you welcome everyone except for crypto developers? As a privacy-focused source control site, I expected more inclusion to be granted to users. My last remark, before closing this post, is one of history. In the 1990s the NSA attempted to make distribution of strong cryptography software illegal. They failed. Why? Because everyone distributed the source code via different mediums such as CDs, books, coffee mugs and T-shirts. You know, "crypto" got its name from cryptography. And also, many regulators and web services who similarly do not understand crypto properly also want to ban us. But our motto is: If you ban us in one place, we will appear in ten more places. If you don't believe me, just look how many websites are hosting a copy of the Bitcoin whitepaper ever since Craig Wright tried to sue bitcoin.org to take it down. -Ali Sherief (Zenul_Abidin)

I agree with that @ZenulAbidin . You are totally right on your post.

And it is not justice those that want to ban cryptocurrency for its "not green" energy usage, and allow banks infrastructure to use "not green" energy. Like New York State has done.

I agree with that @ZenulAbidin . You are totally right on your post. And it is not justice those that want to ban cryptocurrency for its "not green" energy usage, and allow banks infrastructure to use "not green" energy. Like New York State has done.
Poster

If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text? Please, we have better things to do with our time. I can’t speak for others, but for me three pages of crypto talking points I’ve heard a hundred times won’t convince me of anything, but rather make me roll my eyes and skip it. I don’t think that it helps your cause.

I have nevertheless read through it all. There’s some things I’d like to address.

First, this proposal is not about banning “scam copies of crypto projects”. The main premise is that the overwhelming majority of the cryptocurrency/blockchain scene itself is either a scam, or primarily used to scam other people.

Right now, the default assumption on Codeberg is “assume that a project is benign”, until that project behaves differently. The proposal says “since most of the crypto scene is dubious at best, flip this default for crypto projects, i.e. assume that they are bad unless they convincingly argue why they’re not“.

While the original idea behind Bitcoin might very well have been the democratization of finance, you have to admit that the main outcome until now has been speculation and pyramid schemes, usually with less privileged and/or tech-savvy people losing their money – sometimes all of their life’s savings – to a few people who ripped them off. Not to “scam copies”, but to hundreds of ape vendors and failed exchanges and so on.

Second, people are responding with the laughing face emoji to your claims that blockchains might stop the next pandemic because everything you’re suggesting is completely possible without decentralized trustless blockchain technology. (Also, “the virus came from a lab” is a well-known conspiracy myth. Right now there’s no scientific proof or disproof, but simply the fact that you’re using it as your prime example of a blockchain use case makes you sound like a tinfoil hat person.)

Like, even if I might agree with your proposal of the labs having to publish Merkle roots of their data – they might simply publish it on their websites for everyone to track, or to one or more accepted bodies like the WHO. Nobody needs cryptocurrency projects for that.

Third, please don’t waste your time trying to explain to us how proof-of-stake has fixed all the energy usage problems. Even if most crypto projects had moved to PoS – which they have not – it’s really not the main issue. The main issue is the negative impact on society, as mentioned above. I can’t phrase it better than SourceHut did:

These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion.

Now I’m not saying that every crypto proponent is a scammer. Some of you might even believe that they’re doing society a favor, and you may be motivated by really idealistic goals instead of selfishness. But your community is full of people who aren’t, and I don’t see you doing anything about this.

Instead, whenever there’s a backlash against the useless blockchainification of everything, whenever people are telling you that we see past the buzzwords and bullshit, and that it’s not welcome here, you argue that we just haven’t understood the crypto projects well enough.

The thing is: We understand them. We’re experienced developers, we can wrap our heads around a bit of hashing. But: We’re also seeing the bigger picture, the damage done by these projects. We think you’re bad company, that you’re actively destroying what we’re trying to preserve, we consider what you’re doing to be deeply amoral, and we. Don’t. Want you here.


However, again, I can’t speak for others. In fact, I’ve opened this issue to find out whether “we don’t want you here” is consensus amongst Codeberg users. Because if it’s not, I know that I’ll have to find another place for what I’m coding.

If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text? Please, we have better things to do with our time. I can’t speak for others, but for me three pages of crypto talking points I’ve heard a hundred times won’t convince me of anything, but rather make me roll my eyes and skip it. I don’t think that it helps your cause. I have nevertheless read through it all. There’s some things I’d like to address. First, this proposal is not about banning “scam copies of crypto projects”. The main premise is that the overwhelming majority of the cryptocurrency/blockchain scene _itself_ is either a scam, or primarily used to scam other people. Right now, the default assumption on Codeberg is “assume that a project is benign”, until that project behaves differently. The proposal says “since most of the crypto scene is dubious at best, flip this default for crypto projects, i.e. assume that they are bad unless they convincingly argue why they’re not“. While the original idea behind Bitcoin might very well have been the democratization of finance, you have to admit that the main outcome until now has been speculation and pyramid schemes, usually with less privileged and/or tech-savvy people losing their money – sometimes all of their life’s savings – to a few people who ripped them off. Not to “scam copies”, but to hundreds of ape vendors and failed exchanges and so on. Second, people are responding with the laughing face emoji to your claims that blockchains might stop the next pandemic because everything you’re suggesting is completely possible without decentralized trustless blockchain technology. (Also, “the virus came from a lab” is a well-known conspiracy myth. Right now there’s no scientific proof _or_ disproof, but simply the fact that you’re using it as your prime example of a blockchain use case makes you sound like a tinfoil hat person.) Like, even if I might agree with your proposal of the labs having to publish Merkle roots of their data – they might simply publish it on their websites for everyone to track, or to one or more accepted bodies like the WHO. Nobody needs cryptocurrency projects for that. Third, please don’t waste your time trying to explain to us how proof-of-stake has fixed all the energy usage problems. Even _if_ most crypto projects had moved to PoS – which they have not – it’s really not the main issue. The main issue is the negative impact on society, as mentioned above. I can’t phrase it better than SourceHut did: > These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion. Now I’m not saying that every crypto proponent is a scammer. Some of you might even believe that they’re doing society a favor, and you may be motivated by really idealistic goals instead of selfishness. But your community is full of people who aren’t, and I don’t see you doing anything about this. Instead, whenever there’s a backlash against the useless blockchainification of everything, whenever people are telling you that we see past the buzzwords and bullshit, and that it’s not welcome here, you argue that we just haven’t understood the crypto projects well enough. The thing is: We understand them. We’re experienced developers, we can wrap our heads around a bit of hashing. But: We’re also seeing the bigger picture, the damage done by these projects. We think you’re bad company, that you’re actively destroying what we’re trying to preserve, we consider what you’re doing to be deeply amoral, and **we. Don’t. Want you here.** ---- However, again, I can’t speak for others. In fact, I’ve opened this issue to find out whether “we don’t want you here” is consensus amongst Codeberg users. Because if it’s not, I know that I’ll have to find another place for what _I’m_ coding.

There goes Codeberg motto of "We welcome the world" for @scy . Ohh well....

There goes Codeberg motto of "We welcome the world" for @scy . Ohh well....

Reading the "arguments" from the cryptobros combined with their arrogant "you do not understand crypto" attitude convinces me more that there should be some sort of extension to our terms of service that states: "we only tolerate cryptocurrency code, but we don't like it being here". Blockchain code that isn't used for cryptocurrencies or NFTs or something else with money should be allowed to stay.

If cryptocurrencies are so much better than banks and fiat money, then why aren't people in El Salvador adopting the Bitcoin? https://www.reuters.com/technology/year-el-salvadors-bitcoin-experiment-is-stumbling-2022-09-07/

Reading the "arguments" from the cryptobros combined with their arrogant "you do not understand crypto" attitude convinces me more that there should be some sort of extension to our terms of service that states: "we only tolerate cryptocurrency code, but we don't like it being here". Blockchain code that isn't used for cryptocurrencies or NFTs or something else with money should be allowed to stay. If cryptocurrencies are so much better than banks and fiat money, then why aren't people in El Salvador adopting the Bitcoin? https://www.reuters.com/technology/year-el-salvadors-bitcoin-experiment-is-stumbling-2022-09-07/

This thread should not deviate from the main talking point of banning crypto projects from your platform. Accodringly, I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above.

These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion.

@scy You realize that this is a load of rubbish from SourceHut, right? Why do you think Satoshi Nakamoto invented blockchain? To scam people with it, or to enable people to scam others with it?

I am sure he would be appaled if he saw that people are trying to scam others with his invention.

Now, they say "crypto takes advantage of prople from developing countries".

As someone living in actual developing country (Ethiopia), I can confidently tell you people around here are using crypto technology without geting scammed, becauce they know what scams to watch out for.

I could go into length on how crypto solves the wealth inequality problem that SourceHut claims crypto started, but I won't, because of my on-topic commitment above.

The lesson you and the other maintainers should take from this experience is: do not follow Pied Piper rats that are jumping off a cliff.

SourceHut made an incredibly stupid decision without taking the situation and analyzing it problerly. They see "fraudulent activity", and then blame the developers for enabling it. It's like saying that you want Bitcoin Core developers in jail because a host of actual criminals with no knowledge of coding are using it to rob people. (You know, from primitive theft by so called "anonymous" guys hiding behind a screen to high-level attempted thread in the legal system by Craig Wright himself).

This is a foolhardy proposal to make. Do not encourage others on it.

This thread should not deviate from the main talking point of banning crypto **projects** from your platform. Accodringly, I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above. > These domains are strongly associated with fraudulent activities and high-risk investments which take advantage of people who are suffering from economic hardship and growing global wealth inequality. Few to no legitimate use-cases for this technology have been found; instead it is mostly used for fraudulent “get rich quick” schemes and to facilitate criminal activity, such as ransomware, illicit trade, and sanctions evasion. @scy You realize that this is a load of rubbish from SourceHut, right? Why do you think Satoshi Nakamoto invented blockchain? To scam people with it, or to enable people to scam others with it? I am sure he would be appaled if he saw that people are trying to scam others with his invention. Now, they say "crypto takes advantage of prople from developing countries". As someone living in actual developing country (Ethiopia), I can confidently tell you people around here are using crypto technology without geting scammed, becauce they know what scams to watch out for. I could go into length on how crypto solves the wealth inequality problem that SourceHut claims crypto started, but I won't, because of my on-topic commitment above. The lesson you and the other maintainers should take from this experience is: *do not follow Pied Piper rats that are jumping off a cliff.* SourceHut made an incredibly stupid decision without taking the situation and analyzing it problerly. They see "fraudulent activity", and then blame the developers for enabling it. It's like saying that you want Bitcoin Core developers in jail because a host of actual criminals with no knowledge of coding are using it to rob people. (You know, from primitive theft by so called "anonymous" guys hiding behind a screen to high-level attempted thread in the legal system by Craig Wright himself). This is a foolhardy proposal to make. Do not encourage others on it.
fnetX added the
licence / ToS
label 5 days ago

"If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text?"-If you do not want to read the text, then please do not talk to be about cryptocurrencies. I do not use Codeberg, I have no plans on using Codeberg for obvious reasons. I am simply communicating to make a point and to end the hatred. I am a potential Codeberg user who is turned off by Codeberg, so you should be interested to hear what I have to say.

"Please, we have better things to do with our time."-Please have some respect. The only thing you are doing is convincing me that the anti-crypto people have absolutely no social skills and are completely insufferable.

"Like, even if I might agree with your proposal of the labs having to publish Merkle roots of their data – they might simply publish it on their websites for everyone to track, or to one or more accepted bodies like the WHO. Nobody needs cryptocurrency projects for that."-And now are we supposed to rely on the WHO to make sure that everything is in order? I would rather not need to rely on the WHO or any other organization. Any final report from the lab leak investigation which does not cite the data being timestamped should be considered very untrustworthy. Let's compare options.

Very Bad-Rely on the WHO as a timestamping authority for BSL-4 labs to authenticate the timestamps. The WHO is not a cybersecurity organization. Furthermore, in the final report on a lab incident, the report needs to cite the data being timestamped and prove that the data is authentic. You can't do this by saying 'trust us'.

Better but still has flaws-Have all of the timestamps be a part of a directed acyclic graph of hashes which is similar to a blockchain. The graph gives the order in which the timestamps have been produced.

Good-BSL-4 labs can post timestamps on a decentralized public blockchain like the Bitcoin blockchain.

'Also, “the virus came from a lab” is a well-known conspiracy myth.'-Claiming something is a conspiracy does not automatically make it false. You will need this thing called evidence to back up your presumption that Sars-Cov-2 is completely natural. Examples of evidence of this claim include a wild population of animals where Sars-Cov-2 was already circulating before the Covid-19 pandemic or the cryptographic timestamps along with the data being timestamped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (these timestamps should be posted on a proof-of-work cryptocurrency blockchain). Testimony from scientists claiming that the virus is completely natural does not count as evidence. Calling something a conspiracy theorist will not make me shut up about Covid-19, but it will instead prompt me to send this message to as many people as I possibly can. It is not good to call someone a conspiracy theorist who is simply wanting for BSL-4 labs to be investigatable.

"But your community is full of people who aren’t, and I don’t see you doing anything about this."-I have created a Circcash Social Communication Telegram group here where we can learn how to become better people with better social skills https://t.me/+pRl_fiv1MrU1NzBh. I invite all cryptocurrency enthusiasts to join that group so that they can become better people. I personally get shamed by cryptocurrency people and by people who hate cryptocurrencies, and I want people to finally learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

"Instead, whenever there’s a backlash against the useless blockchainification of everything, whenever people are telling you that we see past the buzzwords and bullshit, and that it’s not welcome here, you argue that we just haven’t understood the crypto projects well enough."-If people really understood crypography and cryptocurrencies better, there would not be such a useless blockchainification and buzzwords.

"We think you’re bad company, that you’re actively destroying what we’re trying to preserve, we consider what you’re doing to be deeply amoral, and we. Don’t. Want you here."-You need to join the Circcash Social Communication Telegram group in order to learn to communicate like a decent person.

Good ways of preventing scams:

  1. Reading the Bitcoin whitepaper and understanding what it is about

  2. Not keeping your cryptocurrency on exchanges unless you are currently buying or selling

  3. Not worshipping Elon Musk

  4. Using cryptocurrency mining to solve an important scientific problem

Bad ways of preventing scams:

  1. Yelling at the person who is trying to use cryptocurrency technologies to solve an important scientific problem

  2. Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg

  3. Banning cryptocurrencies in general from your country

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Creator of Circcash

"If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text?"-If you do not want to read the text, then please do not talk to be about cryptocurrencies. I do not use Codeberg, I have no plans on using Codeberg for obvious reasons. I am simply communicating to make a point and to end the hatred. I am a potential Codeberg user who is turned off by Codeberg, so you should be interested to hear what I have to say. "Please, we have better things to do with our time."-Please have some respect. The only thing you are doing is convincing me that the anti-crypto people have absolutely no social skills and are completely insufferable. "Like, even if I might agree with your proposal of the labs having to publish Merkle roots of their data – they might simply publish it on their websites for everyone to track, or to one or more accepted bodies like the WHO. Nobody needs cryptocurrency projects for that."-And now are we supposed to rely on the WHO to make sure that everything is in order? I would rather not need to rely on the WHO or any other organization. Any final report from the lab leak investigation which does not cite the data being timestamped should be considered very untrustworthy. Let's compare options. Very Bad-Rely on the WHO as a timestamping authority for BSL-4 labs to authenticate the timestamps. The WHO is not a cybersecurity organization. Furthermore, in the final report on a lab incident, the report needs to cite the data being timestamped and prove that the data is authentic. You can't do this by saying 'trust us'. Better but still has flaws-Have all of the timestamps be a part of a directed acyclic graph of hashes which is similar to a blockchain. The graph gives the order in which the timestamps have been produced. Good-BSL-4 labs can post timestamps on a decentralized public blockchain like the Bitcoin blockchain. 'Also, “the virus came from a lab” is a well-known conspiracy myth.'-Claiming something is a conspiracy does not automatically make it false. You will need this thing called evidence to back up your presumption that Sars-Cov-2 is completely natural. Examples of evidence of this claim include a wild population of animals where Sars-Cov-2 was already circulating before the Covid-19 pandemic or the cryptographic timestamps along with the data being timestamped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (these timestamps should be posted on a proof-of-work cryptocurrency blockchain). Testimony from scientists claiming that the virus is completely natural does not count as evidence. Calling something a conspiracy theorist will not make me shut up about Covid-19, but it will instead prompt me to send this message to as many people as I possibly can. It is not good to call someone a conspiracy theorist who is simply wanting for BSL-4 labs to be investigatable. "But your community is full of people who aren’t, and I don’t see you doing anything about this."-I have created a Circcash Social Communication Telegram group here where we can learn how to become better people with better social skills https://t.me/+pRl_fiv1MrU1NzBh. I invite all cryptocurrency enthusiasts to join that group so that they can become better people. I personally get shamed by cryptocurrency people and by people who hate cryptocurrencies, and I want people to finally learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner. "Instead, whenever there’s a backlash against the useless blockchainification of everything, whenever people are telling you that we see past the buzzwords and bullshit, and that it’s not welcome here, you argue that we just haven’t understood the crypto projects well enough."-If people really understood crypography and cryptocurrencies better, there would not be such a useless blockchainification and buzzwords. "We think you’re bad company, that you’re actively destroying what we’re trying to preserve, we consider what you’re doing to be deeply amoral, and we. Don’t. Want you here."-You need to join the Circcash Social Communication Telegram group in order to learn to communicate like a decent person. Good ways of preventing scams: 1. Reading the Bitcoin whitepaper and understanding what it is about 2. Not keeping your cryptocurrency on exchanges unless you are currently buying or selling 3. Not worshipping Elon Musk 4. Using cryptocurrency mining to solve an important scientific problem Bad ways of preventing scams: 1. Yelling at the person who is trying to use cryptocurrency technologies to solve an important scientific problem 2. Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg 3. Banning cryptocurrencies in general from your country -Joseph Van Name Ph.D. Creator of Circcash

In the 1990s my grandmother used to say the world wide web is a waste of electricity. She had no use for it whatsoever.

It turns out she was correct! Today it’s estimated 8.3% of websites on the internet are running scam operations.

Given all this, I say we take a stand against HTML and all web-related projects on Codeberg.

Of course we’ll also need to change all of this stuff in the Codeberg bylaws and on the homepage...

> Software Development, and Freedom!

> Codeberg is a collaboration platform and Git hosting for Free and Open Source Software, content and projects.

(1) The purpose of the association is to promote the creation, collection, distribution and preservation of Free Content (Open Content, Free Cultural Works) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and their documentation in selfless work to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education. Furthermore, this also intends to raise awareness for the social and philosophical questions interconnected with this.

(2) For the collection and distribution of free content, open and commonly used Repository and Version Control Systems ("RCS" and "VCS") that save and preserve the whole history of the creation and improvement of Open Source software and make it freely available to society on the Internet, should be primarily but not exclusively used and generally made available. A prominent example is "GIT", a software created by Linux developer Linus Torvalds.

(3) The association acts independently and autonomously.

(4) The purpose of the association shall be served in particular by

the operation of Internet systems for the creation, collection and distribution of Free Software (Open Source) and Free Content.
the distribution and support of the distribution of Free Software and Free Content via different methods, for example via digital or printed media.
the acquisition, provision and distribution of information as well as public relations work on the topic of Free Software and Free Content.
the clarification of scientific, social, cultural and legal questions related to Free Software, Free Content, Repository and Version Control Systems and Wikis. Examples are reports, studies and the commissioning of research and development of systems necessary for the operation of the platform as well as the awarding of scholarships in these domains. These must directly serve the goals and purpose of Codeberg e.V. and results must be published and made available to the public in a timely manner. Furthermore, commissions, scholarships and the guidelines for their awarding must be publicly announced.

In the 1990s my grandmother used to say the world wide web is a waste of electricity. She had no use for it whatsoever. It turns out she was correct! Today it’s estimated [8.3%](https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/09/29/2524859/0/en/Study-Reveals-8-3-of-All-Websites-Are-Scams-How-Big-Internet-Companies-Are-Supporting-Scammers.html) of websites on the internet are running scam operations. Given all this, I say we take a stand against HTML and all web-related projects on Codeberg. Of course we’ll also need to change all of this stuff in the Codeberg bylaws and on the homepage... ### > Software Development, and Freedom! **> Codeberg is a collaboration platform and Git hosting for Free and Open Source Software, content and projects.** > (1) The purpose of the association is to promote the creation, collection, distribution and preservation of Free Content (Open Content, Free Cultural Works) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and their documentation in selfless work to enable equal opportunities regarding the access to knowledge and education. Furthermore, this also intends to raise awareness for the social and philosophical questions interconnected with this. > > (2) For the collection and distribution of free content, open and commonly used Repository and Version Control Systems ("RCS" and "VCS") that save and preserve the whole history of the creation and improvement of Open Source software and make it freely available to society on the Internet, should be primarily but not exclusively used and generally made available. A prominent example is "GIT", a software created by Linux developer Linus Torvalds. > > (3) The association acts independently and autonomously. > > (4) The purpose of the association shall be served in particular by > > the operation of Internet systems for the creation, collection and distribution of Free Software (Open Source) and Free Content. > the distribution and support of the distribution of Free Software and Free Content via different methods, for example via digital or printed media. > the acquisition, provision and distribution of information as well as public relations work on the topic of Free Software and Free Content. > the clarification of scientific, social, cultural and legal questions related to Free Software, Free Content, Repository and Version Control Systems and Wikis. Examples are reports, studies and the commissioning of research and development of systems necessary for the operation of the platform as well as the awarding of scholarships in these domains. These must directly serve the goals and purpose of Codeberg e.V. and results must be published and made available to the public in a timely manner. Furthermore, commissions, scholarships and the guidelines for their awarding must be publicly announced.

As someone who has a self-hosted gitea containing 50+ blockchain tech-related repos and plans to mirror them here, such a drastic change to the TOS may affect me/org directly.

Bitcoin and Ethereum Mainnet are just some of the blockchain implementations around. Taking the example of Ethereum, anyone can run a full-blown EVM blockchain on Raspberry PIs using geth or any other full client that supports PoA/PoS consensus. I run such a humanitarian blockchain, and its system requirements are similar to gitea for medium teams. Some other blockchain implementations (Cosmos, Substrate) are far leaner. So, the notion of resource-efficiency of blockchain technology is highly subjective, depending on the context. Yet, such a policy change will introduce a blanket ban on all blockchain tech regardless of its efficiency.

Blockchain technology is synonymous with speculative crypto (and the subsequent financial ruin it may cause to individuals). Edge cases are often ignored (as evident in this thread). A lot of blockchain humanitarian work is supported by both NGOs (UN, WFP, RC, e.t.c) and Government Agencies (Germany GIZ, Norway Innovasjon Norge e.t.c.) who have surely done their due diligence on the possibilities of such technologies. Digital ledgers backed by blockchain are changing the lives of people in marginalized communities. Bukele and El Salvador are just some of the people doing this (his experiment is a failure imo).

No doubt that crypto is a very high-risk market. It is also home to most scams, most MLMs, e.t.c. In short, its properties are abused and will be for the foreseeable future. Crypto is either fully permissionless or not. I am personally contacted on Telegram almost daily to create a scamming smart contract. Such cases should be moderated. I support a total ban on any software used to facilitate scams. It is complicated to filter out such code, but possible.

Finally, I believe this proposal is a moral high-ground fallacy that will set an extremely controversial precedent. Does codeberg ban porn-enabling software? Does codeberg ban e2e communication software which terrorists use? Does codeberg IP ban country X for violating human rights?

I can see that the indiviual memebers of the governing collective have some bias against crypto in general, but I hope that such a proposal is shot down. "Cryptobros" (as someone here calls us) are an obvious minority on codeberg. Before this goes into a vote, let it be revised to be sane enough and not a blanket ban inspired by a one man show at a for profit platform.

P.S

@scy

If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text? Please, we have better things to do with our time. I can’t speak for others, but for me three pages of crypto talking points I’ve heard a hundred times won’t convince me of anything, but rather make me roll my eyes and skip it. I don’t think that it helps your cause.

If you start a thread or proposal as controversial as this, you should obviously expect some rebuttal. No need for such immature responses, especially as the proposer.

As someone who has a self-hosted gitea containing 50+ blockchain tech-related repos and plans to mirror them here, such a drastic change to the TOS may affect me/org directly. Bitcoin and Ethereum Mainnet are just some of the blockchain implementations around. Taking the example of Ethereum, anyone can run a full-blown EVM blockchain on Raspberry PIs using [geth](https://geth.ethereum.org/) or any other full client that supports PoA/PoS consensus. I run such a humanitarian blockchain, and its system requirements are similar to gitea for medium teams. Some other blockchain implementations (Cosmos, Substrate) are far leaner. So, the notion of resource-efficiency of blockchain technology is highly subjective, depending on the context. Yet, such a policy change will introduce a blanket ban on all blockchain tech regardless of its efficiency. Blockchain technology is synonymous with speculative crypto (and the subsequent financial ruin it may cause to individuals). Edge cases are often ignored (as evident in this thread). A lot of blockchain humanitarian work is supported by both NGOs (UN, WFP, RC, e.t.c) and Government Agencies (Germany GIZ, Norway Innovasjon Norge e.t.c.) who have surely done their due diligence on the possibilities of such technologies. Digital ledgers backed by blockchain are changing the lives of people in marginalized communities. Bukele and El Salvador are just some of the people doing this (his experiment is a failure imo). No doubt that crypto is a *very* high-risk market. It is also home to most scams, most MLMs, e.t.c. In short, its properties are **abused** and will be for the foreseeable future. Crypto is either fully permissionless or not. I am personally contacted on Telegram almost daily to create a scamming smart contract. Such cases should be moderated. I support a total ban on any software used to facilitate scams. It is complicated to filter out such code, but possible. Finally, I believe this proposal is a moral high-ground fallacy that will set an extremely controversial precedent. Does codeberg ban porn-enabling software? Does codeberg ban e2e communication software which terrorists use? Does codeberg IP ban country X for violating human rights? I can see that the indiviual memebers of the governing collective have some bias against crypto in general, but I hope that such a proposal is shot down. "Cryptobros" (as someone here calls us) are an obvious minority on codeberg. Before this goes into a vote, let it be revised to be sane enough and not a blanket ban inspired by a one man show at a for profit platform. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403780 * https://web.archive.org/web/20221126092301/https://www.grassrootseconomics.org/bad-bus-tickets * https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/ryk3it/my_first_impressions_of_web3/hrrz15r/ **P.S** @scy > If you’re not even using Codeberg, why are you making us go through these walls of text? Please, we have better things to do with our time. I can’t speak for others, but for me three pages of crypto talking points I’ve heard a hundred times won’t convince me of anything, but rather make me roll my eyes and skip it. I don’t think that it helps your cause. If you start a thread or proposal as controversial as this, you should obviously expect some rebuttal. No need for such immature responses, especially as the proposer.

@ZenulAbidin

I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above.

Is it an inconvenient truth that the working class in El Salvador is rejecting volatile crypto-"currencies" and instead relies on long established currencies? ;)

@jvanname

[...]
I personally get shamed by cryptocurrency people and by people who hate cryptocurrencies, and I want people to finally learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

Regarding your behavior in this discussion, the problem is on your side. You have a lot to learn, especially how to leave arrogance behind.

Now back to topic:

Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg

This is not the point of the discussion. The point is that crypto-"currency" projects are not welcome here because of their misuse for ponzi schemes, scams and loss of investment. Take the FTX case for example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/15/xisx-n15.html
There is also a longer list with examples (in german): https://blog.fefe.de/?q=Kryptow%C3%A4hrung

If people really understood crypography and cryptocurrencies better, there would not be such a useless blockchainification and buzzwords.

I think I am qualified enough to talk about crypto-"currencies" and what I learned since 2015 is that the risks and environmental damage of crypto-"currencies" outweight their benefits.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Creator of Circcash

-Moritz Strohm, M.Sc.

Author of a Master thesis regarding technical aspects of crypto-"currencies" and their use in commerce

@ZenulAbidin > I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above. Is it an inconvenient truth that the working class in El Salvador is rejecting volatile crypto-"currencies" and instead relies on long established currencies? ;) @jvanname > [...] > I personally get shamed by cryptocurrency people and by people who hate cryptocurrencies, and I want people to finally learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Regarding your behavior in this discussion, the problem is on your side. You have a lot to learn, especially how to leave arrogance behind. Now back to topic: > Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg This is not the point of the discussion. The point is that crypto-"currency" projects are not welcome here because of their misuse for ponzi schemes, scams and loss of investment. Take the FTX case for example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/15/xisx-n15.html There is also a longer list with examples (in german): https://blog.fefe.de/?q=Kryptow%C3%A4hrung > If people really understood crypography and cryptocurrencies better, there would not be such a useless blockchainification and buzzwords. I think I am qualified enough to talk about crypto-"currencies" and what I learned since 2015 is that the risks and environmental damage of crypto-"currencies" outweight their benefits. > -Joseph Van Name Ph.D. > > Creator of Circcash -Moritz Strohm, M.Sc. Author of a Master thesis regarding technical aspects of crypto-"currencies" and their use in commerce

I found an english source with lots of examples where crypto-"currencies" went wrong: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

I found an english source with lots of examples where crypto-"currencies" went wrong: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

@ZenulAbidin

I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above.

Is it an inconvenient truth that the working class in El Salvador is rejecting volatile crypto-"currencies" and instead relies on long established currencies? ;)

That is irrelevant. This is a thread proposing to (allegefly) ban crypto projects and developers from Codeberg, not banning crypto from El Salvador.

Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg

This is not the point of the discussion. The point is that crypto-"currency" projects are not welcome here because of their misuse for ponzi schemes, scams and loss of investment.

So if you're not actually banning crypto projects, then what is the point of the thread? If you wanted to put a giant "crypto projects are not welcome here" sign on your homepage, then do it. But that doesn't belog in a Terms of Service which is supposed to clearly say what you are or aren't allowed to do on the site.

Take the FTX case for example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/15/xisx-n15.html

FTX did not make a single open source software let alone host it on Git sites. So as scammy as they are, they are a bad example to use here.

I think I am qualified enough to talk about crypto-"currencies" and what I learned since 2015 is that the risks and environmental damage of crypto-"currencies" outweight their benefits.

So in other words you're sayig the only reasom you want to put a big "cryptobros [sic] are not welcome here" is because you, and the other 3 guys who made this thread, don't like it?

It's your platform, do what you want. I won't get into silly bikeshedding arguments about whether it's right for someone to feel entitled to publicly announce that they don't want crypto projects on a public site.

But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us.

> @ZenulAbidin > > > I refuse to get into engagements that are drifting off-topic, such as the El Salvador comment above. > > Is it an inconvenient truth that the working class in El Salvador is rejecting volatile crypto-"currencies" and instead relies on long established currencies? ;) That is irrelevant. This is a thread proposing to (allegefly) ban crypto **projects** and **developers** from Codeberg, not banning crypto from El Salvador. > > Banning cryptocurrency projects from Codeberg > > This is not the point of the discussion. The point is that crypto-"currency" projects are not welcome here because of their misuse for ponzi schemes, scams and loss of investment. So if you're not actually banning crypto projects, then what is the point of the thread? If you wanted to put a giant "crypto projects are not welcome here" sign on your homepage, then do it. But that doesn't belog in a **Terms** of Service which is supposed to clearly say what you are or aren't allowed to do on the site. > Take the FTX case for example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/15/xisx-n15.html FTX did not make a single open source software let alone host it on Git sites. So as scammy as they are, they are a bad example to use here. > I think I am qualified enough to talk about crypto-"currencies" and what I learned since 2015 is that the risks and environmental damage of crypto-"currencies" outweight their benefits. So in other words you're sayig the only reasom you want to put a big "cryptobros \[sic\] are not welcome here" is because *you*, and the other 3 guys who made this thread, don't like it? It's your platform, do what you want. I won't get into silly bikeshedding arguments about whether it's right for someone to feel entitled to publicly announce that they don't want crypto projects on a public site. But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us.
Collaborator

@ZenulAbidin You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting.

But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us.

Threatening us will just earn you a ban anyway. You have been warned.

@ZenulAbidin You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting. > But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us. Threatening us will just earn you a ban anyway. You have been warned.

@ZenulAbidin You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting.

But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us.

Threatening us will just earn you a ban anyway. You have been warned.

That was not a threat nor was it intended to be. I literally said: If you try to ban crypto projects, then expect us back here in this thread. Learn to understand the point of people's statements, instead of getting offended by them - it will take you very far professionally.

For now, I am done with this discussion, unless new developments happen, as it has transformed from "we want to ban all crypto projects" to "we want to make a notice that says crypto projects are not welcome here". I am not going to waste time arguing over such an ideological insertion, because I got real issues to address in my own projects.

PS. banning people over a disagreement in future policy will only demonstrate that you guys don't want to consider alternate viewpoints.

> @ZenulAbidin You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting. > > > But if you try banning crypto projects, then expect us. > > Threatening us will just earn you a ban anyway. You have been warned. That was not a threat nor was it intended to be. I literally said: If you try to ban crypto projects, then expect us back here in this thread. Learn to understand the point of people's statements, instead of getting offended by them - it will take you very far professionally. For now, I am done with this discussion, unless new developments happen, as it has transformed from "we want to ban all crypto projects" to "we want to make a notice that says crypto projects are not welcome here". I am not going to waste time arguing over such an ideological insertion, because I got real issues to address in my own projects. PS. banning people over a disagreement in future policy will only demonstrate that you guys don't want to consider alternate viewpoints.

@ncc1988 -Moritz Strohm, M.Sc.-That is cute. I was a professor, and as a former professor, I really do not care about degrees unless I have to at all because universities lack professionalism. If you want me to care about your degree, get your university to acknowledge how unprofessional it is first. Did you also know that universities like the University of Boston refuse to post cryptographic timestamps of everything that goes on in their bio-safety level 4 labs on on blockchains like the Circcash or Bitcoin Blockchain? That is not acceptable. BSL-4 labs need to be investigatable in case a pathogen escapes (unlike Alcatraz, the BSL-4 lab in Boston is not on an island all by itself which just makes a lab leak all that more likely). That means that universities with BSL-4 labs should be considered bio-terrorist organizations that must be treated with the most lovely love by the US military. Maybe we should ban people who are at universities from this site instead. Next time, post a link to your actual thesis so that we can read it and learn from it.

And on the website "https://web3isgoinggreat.com/", you gave a link to a site where there is a ban on cryptocurrency mining at fossil fuel plants. I hope you know that by banning cryptocurrency development, you are exacerbating the problem because the cryptocurrency developers are the ones developing SOLUTIONS to these sorts of problems. We know you have heard of proof-of-stake, but what if there are cryptocurrency developers who are trying to put that energy intensive computation to work to solve one the most important scientific problem? You cannot say that the energy is wasted anymore. Do you also want to ban any research and development into reducing pollution from fossil fuel plants because fossil fuels are bad?

@Bubu "You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting."-You are displaying very poor social communication skills here. You should join the Circcash Social Communication Telegram group in order to improve your social communication skills. https://t.me/+pRl_fiv1MrU1NzBh

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Creator of Circcash which is totally not a scam but the people here do not have the education to realize this because talking to people is a lot like talking to walls

@ncc1988 -Moritz Strohm, M.Sc.-That is cute. I was a professor, and as a former professor, I really do not care about degrees unless I have to at all because universities lack professionalism. If you want me to care about your degree, get your university to acknowledge how unprofessional it is first. Did you also know that universities like the University of Boston refuse to post cryptographic timestamps of everything that goes on in their bio-safety level 4 labs on on blockchains like the Circcash or Bitcoin Blockchain? That is not acceptable. BSL-4 labs need to be investigatable in case a pathogen escapes (unlike Alcatraz, the BSL-4 lab in Boston is not on an island all by itself which just makes a lab leak all that more likely). That means that universities with BSL-4 labs should be considered bio-terrorist organizations that must be treated with the most lovely love by the US military. Maybe we should ban people who are at universities from this site instead. Next time, post a link to your actual thesis so that we can read it and learn from it. And on the website "https://web3isgoinggreat.com/", you gave a link to a site where there is a ban on cryptocurrency mining at fossil fuel plants. I hope you know that by banning cryptocurrency development, you are exacerbating the problem because the cryptocurrency developers are the ones developing SOLUTIONS to these sorts of problems. We know you have heard of proof-of-stake, but what if there are cryptocurrency developers who are trying to put that energy intensive computation to work to solve one the most important scientific problem? You cannot say that the energy is wasted anymore. Do you also want to ban any research and development into reducing pollution from fossil fuel plants because fossil fuels are bad? @Bubu "You are really not helping your case here. I suggest you stop commenting."-You are displaying very poor social communication skills here. You should join the Circcash Social Communication Telegram group in order to improve your social communication skills. https://t.me/+pRl_fiv1MrU1NzBh -Joseph Van Name Ph.D. Creator of Circcash which is totally not a scam but the people here do not have the education to realize this because talking to people is a lot like talking to walls

I found an english source with lots of examples where crypto-"currencies" went wrong:

Regarding the website https://web3isgoinggreat.com/, I personally corrected Molly on Twitter w.r.t. the factual errors in her blog post when she released it earlier this year (titled: Blockchain-based systems are not what they say they are). She didn't do her homework on how RPC communication worked on Ethereum among other misconceptions. I would avoid quoting anyone and their works when they don't do basic background research.

Author of a Master thesis regarding technical aspects of crypto-"currencies" and their use in commerce

I can assure you there are lots of research work been done on the commerce and economics side of blockchain (e.g. https://cofi.informal.systems). I have literally had 2 dissertation interviews this year with Msc./MBA students like yourself on blockchain and financial inclusion. You should post your thesis, but I doubt there is any substance to discredit blockchain technology in general.

@codeberg team, you really need one person in here to represent the views of Codeberg. This thread is already backlinked to the Forgejo discussion on HN and people don't like the tone of the moderator here. Just my $0.02.

> I found an english source with lots of examples where crypto-"currencies" went wrong: Regarding the website `https://web3isgoinggreat.com/`, I personally corrected Molly on Twitter w.r.t. the factual errors in her blog post when she released it earlier this year (titled: Blockchain-based systems are not what they say they are). She didn't do her homework on how RPC communication worked on Ethereum among other misconceptions. I would avoid quoting anyone and their works when they don't do basic background research. > Author of a Master thesis regarding technical aspects of crypto-"currencies" and their use in commerce I can assure you there are lots of research work been done on the commerce and economics side of blockchain (e.g. https://cofi.informal.systems). I have literally had 2 dissertation interviews this year with Msc./MBA students like yourself on blockchain and financial inclusion. You should post your thesis, but I doubt there is any substance to discredit blockchain technology in general. @codeberg team, you really need one person in here to represent the views of Codeberg. This thread is already backlinked to the Forgejo discussion on HN and people don't like the tone of the moderator here. Just my $0.02.

@jvanname

I was a professor, and as a former professor, I really do not care about degrees unless I have to at all

And still you have to put your academic title at the end of each post. :D

@sohail

you really need one person in here to represent the views of Codeberg

I am a member of Codeberg e.V. ;)

@jvanname > I was a professor, and as a former professor, I really do not care about degrees unless I have to at all And still you have to put your academic title at the end of each post. :D @sohail > you really need one person in here to represent the views of Codeberg I am a member of Codeberg e.V. ;)
fnetX locked as Too heated and limited conversation to collaborators 4 days ago
Owner

Thank you all for the "diverse feedback" and the threats, so we are at least preprared for whatever comes.

This thread won't be reopened, but a decision will be made among the Codeberg e.V. members. This public threads leads nowhere.

@scy Thank you for bringing up this topic. The internal discussion is going a little more on-topic, and we will make our stance clear, by latest after the next annual assembly (first months of 2023), in case our internal thread doesn't come to a conclusion either.

Thank you all for the "diverse feedback" and the threats, so we are at least preprared for whatever comes. This thread won't be reopened, but a decision will be made among the Codeberg e.V. members. This public threads leads nowhere. @scy Thank you for bringing up this topic. The internal discussion is going a little more on-topic, and we *will* make our stance clear, by latest after the next annual assembly (first months of 2023), in case our internal thread doesn't come to a conclusion either.
fnetX closed this issue 4 days ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
11 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Codeberg/Community#794
Loading…
There is no content yet.