• X_Cli@lemmy.ml
    61·
    3 years ago

    Pretty uninformed move. Or yet another marketing stunt.

    Cryptocurrencies are not bad (edit: for the climate) by essence. Some are (e.g. proof-of-work based consensus ones). Some aren’t (e.g. federated bizantine agreement).

    The latter does not consume a lot of energy to reach decentralized consensus. That’s why I like XLM.

    Disclosure: I do not own any crypto assets (edit: and I never did in the past either). I am just an applied cryptographer.

    • onlooker@lemmy.ml
      10·
      3 years ago

      The title is a bit off, I think. It implies that Mozilla’s climate policy review is over and done, but as far as I can see, the review is still ongoing. The situation is still the same as last week when this whole kerfuffle blew up: Mozilla has paused cryptocurrency donations and is currently reviewing the impact cryptos have on the world’s climate.

    • arbocenc@collapse.cat
      1·
      3 years ago

      For example G1 / libre currency, a social crypto who is not using PoW, just a simple method to create new money assign every real persona a fix little amount to create (web of trust). More info: https://duniter.org/

  • LIESGREEDMISERY@lemmy.ml
    3·
    3 years ago

    I thought they’re doing review in the way they’re receiving cryptocurrency donation, and pause cryptocurrency donation, not exactly cancelling.

    Even the article itself quoted it:

    “Starting today we are reviewing if and how our current policy on crypto donations fits with our climate goals, and as we conduct our review, we will pause the ability to donate cryptocurrency.”

  • AnarkioCrypto@lemmy.ml
    21·
    3 years ago

    Cryptocurrency is the only accessible donation method for many people.

    Bank transfers, credit cards and Paypal exclude millions of people who don’t have government ID (e.g. the state refuses to print ID for them) and pseudonymous donations aren’t possible (many people need pseudonymity for safety or privacy reasons). In many countries, money orders, cash deposits and Visa gift cards also require ID, even for low amounts like $25. Cash by mail is rarely accepted as a donation method.

    In comparison, Bitcoin and Monero don’t require government ID. It’s possible to buy cryptocurrencies with cash or gift cards or earn them via remote work. Cryptocurrency uses pseudonymous private keys, not state-assigned identities, as proof of ownership and is therefore accessible to everyone who owns or can borrow a computer or smartphone.

    Only accepting KYC’ed fiat payment methods is anti-privacy and financially exclusionary. I commented on this here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations and here: https://anarkiocrypto.medium.com/why-the-states-monopoly-on-identity-is-more-dangerous-than-google-facebook-and-microsoft-4ce415793d7e/

  • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
    36·
    3 years ago

    Crypto one way or another is the future, no matter if people like it or not. There are always people who try to fight new technology, nothing new here. We had the same people fighting PayPal and other online banking system when they were introduced.

    • Fighting technology is stupid, you should embrace it and then find ways to make it reliable, economical and find ways to not waste much energy, new algorithm can archive that.
    • The latest study is from 2020 which analyzed CO2 and came to such a conclusion, since then lots of things have changed. That Bitcoin was never be designed to be climate neutral is clear and there exist already better solutions. I think Tesla, Mozilla etc think that this reflects - forever - the state of blockchain or crypto, which is entirely not the case. It will evolve and we learned already from the mistakes.
    • You can do with one transaction thousands of business transactions in one go with newer algorithm, no bank is that efficient.
    • We simply need to build better renewable energy sources in generally.

    Essential problems are

    • Mining. The govt should declare this world wide as illegal. It looks like this might be happen, there are some countries already banning it which is a good thing.
    • Mozilla and other things that the payment system might never evolve, this is entirely not the case. So Mozilla wrongly assumes that banking is the better solution, this is not the case in terms of efficiency and privacy.
    • Scammers, but they also exist with traditional banking systems. I speculate that the govt and or Mozilla fear loss of control, which might be one key factor why they dislike it.