• fxomt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Hi, it’s against dbzer0’s rules.

    There are less harmful and private ways to pay, too. Such as sending physical money directly to the service (like Mullvad) or if the service doesn’t accept it, something like GNU Taler.

    Services that accept crypto are allowed but as db0 said, promoting crypto is banned. (you won’t get banned, just removed)

    PS: Crypto is not private at all, the ledgers are public. Only Monero is.

      • fxomt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        jfc, even his wallpaper??? lmao. thanks for sharing this, got a crack out of me

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I forgot about the contents of some of those. An extra ironic message to a sex worker:

          We like to see you get fucked too. What is your Monero tip address?

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Monero is the gold standard for that very reason.

      I accept the policies of DBZer0, That’s why I didn’t start this discussion on their instance.

      My core thesis still stands, a discussion about privacy must include all options, including private fungible digital money

      Moving all of the privacy discussion to a place where the privacy discussion is limited to a subset of things that are private. It’s probably not good for the privacy community

      • fxomt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Crypto is banned on the instance in general, i have my own reasons for disliking it but if you get Db0’s approval i have no issue and will remove it. He created the rule, surely he has the reasons.

        It’s harmful for the environment and [most] of them are public (excluding monero but the first point stands), i assume that’s Db0’s reasons.

        Moving all of the privacy discussion to a place where the privacy discussion is limited to a subset of things that are private. It’s probably not good for the privacy community

        Perhaps, but i’m bound by the instances rules.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Perhaps, but i’m bound by the instances rules.

          This is the fediverse, you are not bound to an instance

          • fxomt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            The community itself is hosted on to dbzer0, so i kind of am (the rules of the community, you can praise monero outside the instances’ communities).

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              We are here, on lemmy.world, redirecting people to the community on DBZer0. That is why I’m concerned

              The discussion is about the right home for privacy discussions. I’m happy that privacy@dbzer0 exists, but I am disturbed that we are trying to consolidate all conversations to a community that does not allow all conversations.

              • BlazeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                a community that does not allow all conversations.

                LW has blocked [email protected], how do you think they’ll react if people start asking “which VPN should I use to be anonymous and torrent”?

                As I said in another comment, crypto can be discussed in another community.

              • fxomt@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I am disturbed that we are trying to consolidate all conversations to a community that does not allow all conversations.

                privacy@dbzer0 is just another community, if you don’t like it there’s 4 more privacy communities to choose from, that’s the magic of the fediverse :)

                I’m not trying to consolidate all conversations to privacy@dbzer0, it’s supposed to be a community that solves the problems in the original fedigrow thread. If you don’t believe that they’re problems, then you are more than free to keep using [email protected], [email protected]. They’re all great :)