It amazes me that the anti-crypto crowd would rather be at the mercy of the payment processors that they hate than to accept any crypto transactions.
Crypto isn't perfect, don't get me wrong, but these "all crypto bad" types prefer you not to use it, even for donations because otherwise you are catering to those evil ancaps and contributing to climate change.
Unfortunately, there really is no other option for those who want to donate or purchase things online (semi)-anonymously and/or without a man in the middle. Maybe something like GNU Taler will fix that, but I don't know who uses that or how that works.
@sapphire I don't get this argument. I never hear anyone made the argument that it should replace cash/barter or be used for all transactions. I think it should be used for things like renting VPSes or donating to open-source projects. Both of which wouldn't be options anyway without electricity.
And as I said in another post, it's use as an investment is just a psyop made to undermine it's intended use.
@sapphire No man in the middle. With bank transfers transaction fees go to the banks and payment processors (single corporate entities). With crypto, transactiion fees go to the nodes and miners (literally anyone who sets up a rig).
@sapphire It's better than having a centralized man in the middle. I'd rather have random people take a cut of my transactions than some single, rich monopolist taking a cut.
Do you support onlyfans even though the top 1% of earners take home 99% of the money because it “decentralizes porn”?
@sapphire You are at the mercy of a single entity who can drop you at anytime.
And before you bring up the electric company and ISP, if they drop you, you aren't going to be running a VPS or donating to FOSS projects either way, so it's a moot point.
On that note, at least I have ownership stake in my financial institution.
