This is becoming a trend. SourceHut has banned cryptocurrency-related software from its platform. While I'm a vocal opponent of cryptocurrency and related technologies, I'm a little bit torn on this particular issue - it's a soft form of censorship.
The cryptocurrency market is currently already collapsing under its own weight. I don't think the idea should be attacked directly though (ideas are bulletproof), rather we should assess the side effects and ensure any harm is repaired. So if there was an opportunity to take direct action, it should have been at a regulatory level: carbon tax on the electricity, treat and regulate exchanges the same way you'd treat "brick&mortar" banks/exchanges/transfer services, tax mined coins as income, etc. GPU OEMs should've limited availability per buyer (no normal person needs more than 2 high-end gaming GPUs if they're actually just gaming). Even if you're a cloud provider, you should just charge extra for any excess wear on the hardware, maybe co-locate the "hot" nodes together, and leave politics at the door.
So on one hand, this is a form of censorship. I can imagine that given a sufficiently broad definition of a blockchain, you could use it to shut down any distributed, log-structured database project. On the other hand, the service provider also has the full right to refuse service to anyone, no explanation necessary - I'm certainly happy my company did so, whenever approached by any cryptobros.
It isn't censorship, it's freedom of association. Any business is free to decide who it does business with, offering trade and services requires consent from two parties, economic transactions are voluntary. Last time I checked sort of a leading principle of the whole cryptocurrency community.
That's not true, a business can't discriminate on race, gender, etc. But crypto ownership is ok. We draw the line at race and gender, but it's not a free for all
Protected class is a meaningless distinction in this context. Hetzner is not checking your tax records to determine if you are a cryptoholder, they are denying a specific transaction based on its nature, not yours.
Well, this may change after the wedding website Supreme Court case that is currently under consideration. The Supreme Court is weighing freedom of speech vs discrimination protection.
It may soon be legal to not allow certain races to be your client.
The cryptocurrency market is currently already collapsing under its own weight. I don't think the idea should be attacked directly though (ideas are bulletproof), rather we should assess the side effects and ensure any harm is repaired. So if there was an opportunity to take direct action, it should have been at a regulatory level: carbon tax on the electricity, treat and regulate exchanges the same way you'd treat "brick&mortar" banks/exchanges/transfer services, tax mined coins as income, etc. GPU OEMs should've limited availability per buyer (no normal person needs more than 2 high-end gaming GPUs if they're actually just gaming). Even if you're a cloud provider, you should just charge extra for any excess wear on the hardware, maybe co-locate the "hot" nodes together, and leave politics at the door.
So on one hand, this is a form of censorship. I can imagine that given a sufficiently broad definition of a blockchain, you could use it to shut down any distributed, log-structured database project. On the other hand, the service provider also has the full right to refuse service to anyone, no explanation necessary - I'm certainly happy my company did so, whenever approached by any cryptobros.