Why not? Surely you don't think the government should be in charge of something as critically important as justice, right? I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye". While I do lean toward anarcho-capitalism, I struggle to envision a society that relies solely on the non-aggression principle. When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves. I recognize that the Department of Justice is often inefficient and corrupt, but I acknowledge that these are complex questions without clear answers, and there is no always perfect solution in this world, if any. |
|
|
|
Why do you think discriminating against SBF doesn't have any basis in justice? What is suspicious about that? You're not the arbiter of justice. Just because SBF is a criminal doesn't justify people taking the law into their own hands and preemptively discriminating against him. But even if we agree to disagree on moral grounds, it's still suspicious for a pro-Bitcoin service to support censorship, when the core principle of Bitcoin is its permissionless and censorship-resistant nature. I'm not against the idea of Japanese refusing foreigner tourists from shopping in their stores or nightclubs that require strict dress codes. Other are not obligated to interact with you, even if you offer them money, period. Absolutely, but I never argued otherwise. Merchants should have the right to choose whom they serve, but that doesn't change my view of their actions. Just as they are free to make their choices, I am equally free to express my suspicion of them. And as far as my educational background is concerned, choosing to refuse service based on race is suspicious. No, I don't think it's suspicious that someone would treat criminals differently than innocent people. So, to sum up. It's not suspicious if someone's definition of "everyone" precludes criminals. Alright, lol.  |
|
|
|
How is saying "I'm not going to do business with you" beyond the bounds of justice? Declining to do business with me is not beyond the bounds of justice, but discriminating people based on your own criteria gives the impression that you're acting as judge and jury. Choosing to discriminate and censor voluntarily, without any basis in justice, seems suspicious to me. If you walked into a restaurant, and they refused to serve you because they don't like serving white people, wouldn't you find it suspicious? Libertarians believe that entrepreneurs have the right to decline a business deal, why do you believe that people should be forced to trade with people they don't like? Sure, you're free to run whatever software you want. But, if I told you that everyone deserves privacy, and then I refused to provide you with privacy, wouldn't you find it suspicious? |
|
|
|
If you agree that criminals should be held to justice with imprisonment, then why did you post as if my motives for promoting non custodial open source privacy tools are suspicious? Because supporting that censorship is good with the excuse that criminals need to get punished is suspicious. Censorship is not justified when it goes beyond the bounds of justice, and zkSNACKs was beyond the bounds of justice. |
|
|
|
|
Throwing criminals in prison is justified. Supporting that censorship is good because criminals must be punished is not justified.
|
|
|
|
If a scammer uses Kruw's coordinator and Wasabi to "clean" their stolen coins, that's ok and there is no problem there. Kruw and Wasabi aren't scammers for allowing that to happen. Everyone advertising Wasabi are heroes and privacy advocates.
If a scammer uses a mixer that later gets seized by the government, then the people paid to advertise said mixer are scammers and it's all their fault. They must also return all the coins the government seized. It's a pretty messed up situation, actually. His reasoning is that any privacy service that takes custody is a scammer, because you could have used Wasabi instead. I do however remember him claiming that throwing a criminal in a dungeon and denying him access to privacy is justified. It's safe to assume that his opinions are highly influenced by what he's shilling. It's needless to say that censorship resistant money should come with censorship resistant privacy, and therefore everyone should have access to it, despite ethics. I've noticed some of us arguing the opposite when it comes to stolen coins, which opens up the Pandora box to start censoring. |
|
|
|
Related to @BlackHatCoiner idea, the avatars could be chosen on a first-come, first-served basis, or perhaps by a lottery in which all members participate? My meritocratic character suggests that they should be spread based on earned merit. In that case, fillippone would get the white king (or deny it, since he's wearing the Foxpup avatar). The other king would be icopress. Next, the white and black queen, which would go to cygan and dkbit98 respectively, followed the rooks, GazetaBitcoin and 1miau, etc. A provably fair lottery using block hashes could also determine which piece each of the 31 of you gets to have. Whatever icopress prefers. However, if we go with the lottery, then let me know, because it has to be set up in a particular way, so that certain bias is avoided, and each participant gets an equal probability to win. |
|
|
|
|
If it's still open:
$63,623
|
|
|
|
It seems someone liked the structure of my bbcode  Yeah. That trick on fixing the first image of the table though took me a while... |
|
|
|
|
Time: 12'
Exact Score: 1-3
|
|
|
|
|
Time: 30'
Exact Score: 2-3
|
|
|
|
|
Game 1: 46, 30'
Game 2: 40, 34'
|
|
|
|
Friends, do you want to get custom avatars? Allow me to innovate. Bitcoin is a royal fork. It simultaneously threatens the State and the federal banking system. We need to spread the word. Therefore, I present you... The campaign has 39 participants. 2x kings, 2x queens, 4x bishops, 3x knights (mine is reserved), 4x rooks, and 20x pawns make us a total of 31. Which means, those eight of you left will need to either leave your avatar as is, or choose a pawn. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Alternatively, if you want YouTube in the browser, Invidious. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
