Yet you claim that only A should be allowed. What a farce.

No. It’s you who claims that. Hence the fallacy.
My position is that both are extremely flawed and unethical, but addressing fiat money is not relevant nor needed to make a point about the flaws of crypto"currencies".

“Crypto is far less wasteful than the fiat banking fraud scheme.”

Whataboutism fallacy. It’s not because serial killer A murdered less than serial killer B, that A should be forgiven.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

If you lived in Africa you would say that Bitcoin is godsend, as you can hear it from many africans

“[…] As already mentioned, imposing technology doesn’t work; struggling people know their needs far better than anyone. On the contrary, it seems that the “developing” countries should be telling us what do:

• “The East African region has cemented its position in the digital economy as the global leader with the highest penetration rate of mobile money in the world.” —Daily Monitor (2021)[49]
• “Finally, a number of telcos have managed to develop a superior client experience early in the evolution of mobile financial services in Africa. M-Pesa’s client experience is remarkably simple: it takes only three inputs and six clicks to send funds, on any type of handset. Registration is straightforward; merchant acceptance is widespread, and there are no transaction fees on bill payments.” —McKinsey (2017)[50]

All without blockchain. Who would’ve thunk? For first world countries we sure think third-rate. […]” —Crypto Cult Science

– – – – –
Simply copy-pasting from my own website because of POSSE: “Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere.”

Faulty generalization That some scammers or greedy people in rich countries are promoting it like a ponzi scheme to benefit themselves doesn’t mean every person use it in the same way. Some people use it for its savings in a highly devaluating currency (my use case), others for money laundering, or to send money to Palestine, or to flee a collapsing country because of war and avoiding their money being seized by the policy at the borders, for ransomware, or creating circular economies in poor countries, to donate to human rights activists in dictatorships, to buy drugs, etc, etc these are just some of the dozens of verified uses cases. That’s what happens when a technology is free and permissionless, it’s not good or bad by itself, it’s as good or as bad as the person that uses it. AI is being used to scam people and to detect cancer more precisely than the best experts. That’s and inherent feature of free software. Lemmy is a perfect example, would you promote not using it because there is an instance used for child porn?

It would’ve been a faulty generalization if, like knives or Lemmy, most use cases were benign. Unfortunately crypto"currencies" are predominantly speculative and malignant to society.

Hmm okay, fair enough.

I wouldn’t describe it as “bad”, but because of repetitiveness and vagueness I’d say it’s a draft that could’ve used a couple of re-reads by the author. It sells well because it’s rightfully so dumping on Microsoft.

If the Lemmy admins adhered to everyone’s request to “stop doing X and I’ll donate”, they would end up with zero more donations because people will always give another reason for not donating

I know. But I am not everyone, and this request is not unique. Wikimedia stopped accepting crypto"currencies" as well by community vote.

FIAT stanning never went this hard.

False dilemma. Being against wasteful greed-incentivizing MLM pyramid schemes doesn’t mean not objecting to the flaws of contemporary finance as well.

Please stop accepting crypto"currencies"—multi-level marketing pyramid schemes—and I donate.

What if I paid for all my free software?
I’ve always felt guilty by taking for granted the rare breed of virtuous humans that provide free excellent software without relying on advertising. Let’s change that and pay, how much would I “lose” anyway? —https://www.arscyni.cc/file/take_my_money.html