Schooner @ Schooner @lemmy.ml

Posts

3

Comments

62

Joined

4 yr. ago

Expected.

She basically said it herself though.

At this point, I'm not sure you understand what reactionary means?

The tech being fundamentally flawed has nothing to do with payments being stopped. Show me one reason where they said it was because they weren't receiving the payments as shown by the blockchain.

Really expensive over here, so people only buy them for status basically. Having an iPhone signifies that you're well off enough to not worry about price.

I had a friend who said exactly this. She was just buying it to show off basically. She didn't even believe me when I said the back was glass for some reason lol. And when she got it, she had to get used to counter-intuitive behaviour like the power button cutting a WhatsApp call. She did this multiple times on a call with me, it was pretty funny!

Another friend kinda regrets buying it now because he feels locked in to the Apple ecosystem.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever switch because F-Droid is a huge part of my phone experience. When my Pixel runs out of support, I'll probably just root it.

It's a great phone. Solid hardware, good software. Just not for me.

This makes it sound like you ate his shit...

What enormous transaction fees?

Stablecoin transfers on an Ethereum L2 like Arbitrum is a few cents and about to get even cheaper in the future. It's 1/10000 of a cent on Solana.

Monero payments are 1-3 cents.

Bitcoin has the highest one I paid, something like 12-15 cents. This can go higher like $10 if the chain is busy but you have plenty of options in the crypto space to choose the appropriate chain for payments.

I mean, it's very clear you just listen to mainstream news and actually believe their agenda.

It's reactionary politics? I'm not sure what else led to the rejection. It doesn't actively hurt them to accept crypto. They just capitulated to reactionaries in their rejection, what else would I call it?

I'm not even claiming that crypto in its current form can handle global transactional needs, but Wikipedia and Mozilla realised that it could just be an additional avenue for payments. It wasn't hurting anyone and allowed people like me to contribute. How would you like it if you couldn't pay for things because it upset other people's views of what the world should be like? Because that's what happened to me.

Wikipedia caved to white Western imperialists' demands which have no basis in reality and excluded large portions of the world, most of which are marginalised communities who don't have access to the same financial systems that Westerners do.

I'm just glad that SciHub isn't headed by a reactionary but an actual person who cares about our rights to free and fair access to all things. And SciHub proves the need for an alternate financial system that isn't dominated, or at least, directly controllable by vested interests of the Western financial system.

Your rant is not contrarian for Western imperialists who don't want another financial system competing with their current hegemony.

That's why crypto is hated by Westerners while most others have neutral to positive opinions of it generally.

And the transaction fees argument and time needed for confirmation doesn't even make sense? Wikipedia doesn't need to pay any fees to accept crypto and it's not like they're a business which needs the money a second after the transaction. Even if they did need it that quickly, there are plenty of choices in crypto that settle much faster than Bitcoin, which they used.

I definitely agree with your stance that we should exclude people from things because it's inconvenient. This is why I don't support accessibility measures in any domain.

I don't even understand what your point is? Wikipedia doesn't have to pay fees to accept crypto? They could keep other payment options too, no one said credit cards should not be allowed. They could just provide the address for the centralised exchange and sell it for cash with minimal problems.

What I'm finding out is that people have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to crypto and it's usually privileged Westerners who don't care if other people are included or not. Just straight up racists.

I don't get it

Honestly, they are pretty well funded and don't need the money. I just redirected my money to SciHub and Lemmy now.

Again, price volatility had nothing to with Wikipedia stopping crypto donations.

You can hate all you want, crypto is the only way I have to pay for a lot of things and it has definitely helped me more than reactionary moralists from the West living large in their oppression funded country.

I didn't call them woke. Hell, people would probably call me woke if they asked about my political preferences. Being woke and being a reactionary pawn are two different things.

Except it was complaints from reactionaries which made them delete the option to donate through crypto after accepting it for years!

So, they were worried that an asset that has consistently gone up in the long term was too unstable to receive payments in? Your arguments make no sense.

I used to, but then they removed crypto because of propaganda efforts by reactionary idiots masquerading as progressives. Now, I have no way to donate to them.

Yeah killing millions of people was totally worth getting one man!

Now let's bomb Washington DC to rubble and kill your family so we can get to Bush, the even bigger war criminal.

What are bottle episodes?

I'm from India and it's about ₹120 ~ $1.4.

I think there's a setting to bring back the buttons, if you want that.

Settings -> System -> Gestures -> System navigation

That's not what was said. You said even if the coins are transferred to another wallet, it could be tracked to a new reddit account. It can't.

Idc about the value of Ether itself. If it maintains a healthy valuation in real world terms, that's all that is needed to secure Ethereum. I don't need to trust validators to know they are doing their job, that's how the system is designed. Validators should make sure that state integrity is preserved and that's about it. If they don't, their stake gets reduced and can even go to zero. This is exactly what it means to be trustless. The valuation of Ether is only relevant to the point that it retains enough value that attacking the network becomes prohibitively expensive.

Market manipulation is a function of people and non-transparent dealings. If anything, fully onchain finance would allow information asymmetry to be reduced so that regular people can beware of such frauds.

Are there con artists? Of course. Why would that make me not try to build a better system than "regulated finance" which is the same, if not worse, deal but where I am not allowed to participate by regulators who act as gatekeepers.

Ether by itself is useless, its value is determined by how much demand blockspace on Ethereum has. This is a better system than my government imposing capital controls and taxing the shit out of me without even giving me a good bus to ride on to work.

Anyway, like it was said, if you don't get it, it's not really my job to convince you, but I hope you don't go around spreading misinformation like you are doing right now.