By Bitcoin.com - 2 jaar gelede - Leestyd: 4 minute
Wikimedia-stigting debatteer aanvaarding van kriptogeldeenheidskenkings oor omgewingsbekommernisse
Na Mozilla se besluit om kripto-skenkings te onderbreek weens omgewingsbekommernisse, het 'n aantal Wikimedia Foundation-gemeenskapslede 'n voorstel ingedien wat die stigting vra om op te hou om digitale geldeenheidskenkings te aanvaar. Die voorstel verduidelik dat kripto-skenkings "'n bekragtiging van die kripto-geldeenheid-ruimte aandui," en sê ook dat "Krypto-geldeenhede dalk nie ooreenstem met die Wikimedia-stigting se verbintenis tot omgewingsvolhoubaarheid nie."
Voorstel beweer dat kriptogeldeenhede dalk nie ooreenstem met die Wikimedia-stigting nie
Members of the Wikimedia Foundation are voting on a proposal that could stop the foundation from accepting digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum. The U.S. non-profit begin aanvaar het crypto assets in 2019 via Bitpay. “We accept donations globally, and we strive to provide a large variety of donation options. It’s very important that we can get international donations processed in ways that are efficient and cost-effective,” Pats Pena, director of payments and operations at Wikimedia Foundation said at the time.
Maar 'n voorstel submitted by the user dubbed “Gorillawarfare” claims that accepting crypto donations goes against specific Wikimedia Foundation principles. “Cryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy,” the proposal says.
While the proposal mentions the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index it leverages a lot of the research done by the Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal seems to have a lot of support as voting members left comments signaling affirmation. “Long overdue. Accepting cryptocurrency makes a joke out of the WMF’s commitment to environmental sustainability,” Wikimedia user Gamaliel said. However, not everyone agreed and in fact, there are a great number of people who voiced the opposite opinion. In reply to Gamaliel’s statement, for instance, one person wrote:
Is jy bewus daarvan dat die tradisionele bankstelsel ook energie gebruik?
Individu dring daarop aan 'Elke punt is onwaar en/of misleidend'
There is some discussion from a few people’s submitted comments that insists Wikimedia Foundation members should realize the U.S. dollar is backed by significant amounts of carbon energy en worst of all, state-enforced violence. One person explained that each point that Gorillawarfare brought up in the proposal “is untrue and/or misleading.” For example, the point about being aligned with the crypto industry’s so-called values. The individual retorted that “this is not true, any more than accepting USD signals endorsement of the U.S. Dollar or the U.S. Government.”
In reply to the environmental concerns Gorillawarfare introduced in the proposal, the individual explained that the proposal’s point is conflated. “The proposal conflates the existence of Bitcoin to merely using it,” the Wikimedia Foundation member Awwright opined. “The proposal does not demonstrate that dropping acceptance of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) will actually have an effect. As a technical matter, there is no direct relationship between making a Bitcoin transaction and energy usage (that’s significantly more than the domestic banking system).”
Kommentaar beklemtoon vooroordeel wat uit die Digiconomist voortspruit
Furthermore, there are many complaints about Gorillawarfare citing the Digiconomist, as the researcher’s work has been widely dismissed over inaccuracies and extreme bias. “Digiconomist is a blog run by Alex de Vries, who is an werknemer of De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, which is a direct competitor to Bitcoin,” one of the comments against Gorillawarfare’s proposal notes. Another individual explained that the Digiconomist’s work is onakkurate, as many others have discovered, and the Digiconomist’s work is loaded with discrepancies. One individual wrote:
Digiconomist is nie net bevooroordeeld en konflik nie. De Vries is self gepubliseer, het geen redaksionele hersieningsproses nie en hy het 'n swak reputasie vir feitekontrolering en akkuraatheid.
Ten tyde van die skryf hiervan is daar 'n magdom individue wat teen die voorstel is wat deur Gorillawarfare ingedien is, maar die grootste deel van die stemme en kommentaar ondersteun die idee. Dit blyk dat die kripto-gemeenskap en voorstanders van bewys-van-werk (PoW) harder moet werk om die mites uit die weg te ruim wat deur die hoofstroommedia-kenners, die ou finansiële wag en betaalde opposisienavorsers sirkuleer.
Wat dink jy van die Wikimedia Foundation-voorstel wat daarop dui dat die stigting ophou om kripto-bates te aanvaar weens omgewingskwessies? Laat weet ons wat jy oor hierdie onderwerp dink in die kommentaarafdeling hieronder.
Oorspronklike bron: Bitcoin. Met