Topic: Bitcoin donations no longer welcome on Wikipedia - page 2. (Read 358 times)
Now I'm curious about the stats of percentage of Bitcoin donations in various organizations. Wikipedia is a very big and very mainstream organization, so it makes sense that Bitcoin donations are just 0.08%. I would assume that percentage is higher in situations when it's harder to deliver money, like donating to political dissidents in Russia, China, Belarus. Bitcoin shines when other options are hard to use, and such cases are rare in stable, free and peaceful parts of the world.
If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come.
And there are more people preparing for the Apocalypse than the ones that will buy stuff from Amazon with bitcoin. Oh no, let's rephrase that, there are more horse riders in the book of Revelation than there will be buyers!!!
I already know what's coming, one hundred comments about how Wikipedia is stupid for doing this, how they are losing money, how they will cease to exist, and on the 17th page the lone guy that has actually donated to Wikipedia via bitcoin. Does this make us what was that, narcissistic psychopaths?
Probably not, but I think we as a community should start viewing things from the perspective of others before trying to stuff their mouth with cryptos and blockchain and tokens and decentralization.If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.
Alpaca socks amongst them and I don't why I haven't ordered one of those, I need to check if they still ship outside the US!
You see, this is the problem, and the example of Wikipedia is a good one.
Everyone comments here and there that it's "wonderful" and a big step when a company accepts Bitcoin. It's all well and good, but the reality is nobody uses it. In terms of return on investment, why would a company bother adding an option if nobody uses it?
So it may be great to start by admitting that most people are only interested in crypto for speculation. And a lot of you here too.
That's not the purpose of a cryptocurrency at all. Everything else (technology, decentralization, privacy) people don't care about at all. By the way, Cryptocurrency investors are psychopaths, study finds
If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come. There are very few places where people actually use it, such as i.e. Venezuela with its inflation, the Iranian government, or other countries seeking to evade economic sanctions...If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.
According to the 2021 financial year, the donations in bitcoins represented a value of only 0.08% of the foundation's revenues
the community has been voting on the issue since January 2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations#Voting
Over 70% voted to stop accepting cryptocurrencies for the donations (unsigned contributions and new accounts were not taken into account to avoid attempts to manipulate votes)
And as donations have been possible since 2014 or 2015, I think people have had enough time to do something. It's a bit sad for Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it
Everyone comments here and there that it's "wonderful" and a big step when a company accepts Bitcoin. It's all well and good, but the reality is nobody uses it. In terms of return on investment, why would a company bother adding an option if nobody uses it?
So it may be great to start by admitting that most people are only interested in crypto for speculation. And a lot of you here too.
That's not the purpose of a cryptocurrency at all. Everything else (technology, decentralization, privacy) people don't care about at all. By the way, Cryptocurrency investors are psychopaths, study finds
If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come. There are very few places where people actually use it, such as i.e. Venezuela with its inflation, the Iranian government, or other countries seeking to evade economic sanctions...If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.
According to the 2021 financial year, the donations in bitcoins represented a value of only 0.08% of the foundation's revenues
the community has been voting on the issue since January 2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations#Voting
Over 70% voted to stop accepting cryptocurrencies for the donations (unsigned contributions and new accounts were not taken into account to avoid attempts to manipulate votes)
And as donations have been possible since 2014 or 2015, I think people have had enough time to do something. It's a bit sad for Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it
Jump to: