Catherine Flick spreads FUD on bitcoin and dual use

[matonis]

Catherine is a fan of bitcoin, and she was innocently asking a question. What I took for her talk was about what our individual decisions should be and how they influence bitcoin's development. We don't exist in a bubble, and our individual ethical decisions help push bitcoin as a cause for good.

Currencies don't need fans; they needs users.  Bitcoin users and followers do not need to be timid or ashamed of a protocol that enables transactions with user-defined anonymity and user-defined untraceability. It is a proud and noble cause. Personally, I would like to see greater integration and cooperation with the Tor, i2p, and Freenet communities. And, I know some that are working towards this already.

I'm not quite sure how any 'payment medium' can be pushed as a cause for 'good' or for 'bad', except maybe via the bitcoin miners and the protocol revisions that they select to adopt. The reason it is FUD is because she associated dual use as a major dilemma for bitcoin. It is not a dilemma for bitcoin -- it is a feature. Several others have pointed out that knives and pencils and cars have dual use too.  Here are some examples of positive transactions that bitcoin facilitates (be proud....feel free to add your own):

1. the financial support of politically-unpopular or politically-incorrect causes;
2. the father who discretely wants to support an illegitimate child;
3. the woman exercising her right to choose to have a private abortion;
4. the person paying for victimless crime transactions, like pot and prostitution (laws against those enforce morality);
5. the person paying for a VPN service who doesn't want to leave a payment trail;
6. persecuted minorities fleeing a dictator in an attempt to secretly transport their small remaining wealth to safety;
7. Libyan living in Benghazi buying handgun to protect his family from Gaddhafi thugs;
8. the Iranian, Syrian, or <insert nation-State> man that purchases a gun for the protection of his family;

BTW is Irdial lonelyminer? He should email me if he wants to write an article.

Irdial already has a very successful blog and he has written articles for many years at http://irdial.com/blogdial/

[1714930433]

1714930433

[1714930433]

1714930433

[1714930433]

1714930433

[hashman]

Currencies don't need fans; they needs users.  Bitcoin users and followers do not need to be timid or ashamed of a protocol that enables transactions with user-defined anonymity and user-defined untraceability. It is a proud and noble cause. Personally, I would like to see greater integration and cooperation with the Tor, i2p, and Freenet communities. And, I know some that are working towards this already.

I'm not quite sure how any 'payment medium' can be pushed as a cause for 'good' or for 'bad', except maybe via the bitcoin miners and the protocol revisions that they select to adopt. The reason it is FUD is because she associated dual use as a major dilemma for bitcoin. It is not a dilemma for bitcoin -- it is a feature. Several others have pointed out that knives and pencils and cars have dual use too.  Here are some examples of positive transactions that bitcoin facilitates (be proud....feel free to add your own):
[snip]

You got the point, but then you jumped and took the bait anyway..   

As far as dual use goes it's very simple what the two cases are :  1) stuff I like 2) stuff I don't like
and no, you will not find any examples that everybody agrees with. 

Personally I'm more interested in the transactions that block chain currencies DON'T allow:  me adding 9 zeros to my bank account because I know a secret handshake. 

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

[majamalu]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

[Herodes]

Good post by the first poster.

Catherine Flicks I don't know, but if it's correct that she's an academic it probably means she is working for an institution that is completely or party state founded. Having liberal views or condoning something like bitcoin might have real consequences for her professional career and paycheck, although in theory an academic should be allowed to speak freely about whatever he/she wants to speak about, there are often people in high powerful positions that can have someones career wrecked unless they are political correct. And more so if the academic is continually pushing a view that the people sitting on the money bag disagrees with.

I can't assume anything about her and her motives, but for a large amount of people, fear and powerful people above them does limit what they dare say, write or publish because they are afraid to have their paychecks taken away from them.


I'm sure most of you are aware of that, and just think for youself. If you have a difficult boss, and are dependant on your job to make ends meet, and you know that the boss dislikes people who talk against him, no matter how stupid his ideas are, and you know that he does in fact fire and cause troubble for people that speak their mind freely, would you still speak your mind freely ? Chance are that most people will not, because they are afraid.

Of course, finding a new job in such a situation would be the advisable thing to do, but this is the same reason you will never find a bank manager talking highly about bitcoin, as this is not in the interest of the board and the share holders, even if he personally loves bitcoin.

[a63ntsm1th]

-deleted, already covered

[majamalu]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point?

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point?

You see that's your problem, you keep making statements without any proof.. I'm not asking for your opinion what you think constitutes to a debate, I'm asking you whether you can prove as a matter of fact, much like how you'd attempt to prove gravity by throwing a rock as a matter of fact, that a debate is what you say it is.

(btw I wouldn't try too hard, cause it's just your opinion and there is no proof..)

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

[majamalu]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

[majamalu]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself.

But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth.

[westkybitcoins]

But real quick:

“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.

That is false. In order to live it's not merely preferred to breathe, drink, eat ect, it is required. Same goes for anything else. As soon as you have an subjective goal(staying alive), you also have objective requirements(breathing, drinking, ect). Without a goal you merely have a subjective preference. Subjective preferences != objective requirements.

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. Btw look at politicians on TV having a debate, does your definition apply to them? No. But they still call it a debate.

Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Therefor UPB is invalid.

And there you go. It's all just Stef's opinion, nothing less, nothing more, unfortunately.

Nice.

I think I'll keep a copy if this post handy for next time I come across Stef's writings (I always suspected serious logic flaws, but never cared enough to dig into his material and find it.)

As to the OP, I don't think the intent was to spread FUD. That said, her perspective, IMO, still wound up causing it to happen to some degree.

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself.

But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth.

And there you go, by your own admission what constitutes to a debate depends on agreement. Does what is gravity depend on agreement? No.

Btw yes you are right, if I don't agree to your definition I'm not interested in finding the truth, however that doesn't mean we aren't having a debate. Being interested in finding the truth and calling it a debate is your thing, for me and lots of other people it could be something else. Exhibit A: The presidential debates on TV. You can ask a 100 million Americans if their candidates are having a debate and I guarantee most will say yes. Now according to you, they're not but according to them they are.

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now? 

[hazek]

Ehehehehehehe 

[majamalu]

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now?  

Concepts do not exist; concepts are valid or invalid. Number two does not exist, but it is a valid concept.
Regarding the chair, you can say many things about a chair, but if your definition is valid (like "a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person") and we agree on it, I can't say later that a chair is a mammal (I can, but it would be a contradiction).

[hazek]

Ok I guess you're too involved with your own subjective definition of the concept of a debate to see my point so I'll stop here..

Just remember preference != requirement, just like 2+2 != 5 and 5 != 4.

[notme]

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now?  

Concepts do not exist; concepts are valid or invalid. Number two does not exist, but it is a valid concept.
Regarding the chair, you can say many things about a chair, but if your definition is valid (like "a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person") and we agree on it, I can't say later that a chair is a mammal (I can, but it would be a contradiction).

If I stretch my definition of furniture a bit, and agree to your definition of chair, a horse is a chair.

Definitions contain further terms that also need defining.  You'll never finish defining everything.

[majamalu]

It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things).
It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).

Get it now?