Should drugs be listed at bitcoin.it?

[xf2_org]

Forbes and other media love to point at the drug stuff on bitcoin's "official sites" (that being a wiki linked via bitcoin.org).  If you know how the press works, you know this causes the press to focus on drugs, rather than bitcoin's revolutionary properties.

You're either mistaken, or full of shit. The word "drug" only appears twice in the Forbes article (not at all in the Times article), both instances are in the following paragraph:

Look at the sub-head, which mentions shrooms, and appears prominently in search engine quotes of the article.

Ditto for the Time article, and other prominent, recent articles in the Bitcoin Press Hits thread.

And just about every business owner I poll about bitcoin is turned off by the large contingent of teenagers who naively think that we may evade [tax, drug] laws using bitcoin.

[1714800355]

1714800355

[1714800355]

1714800355

[1714800355]

1714800355

[1714800355]

1714800355

[1714800355]

1714800355

[1714800355]

1714800355

[BitterTea]

Look at the sub-head, which mentions shrooms, and appears prominently in search engine quotes of the article.

Ok, but the following things you've said are false:

Forbes and other media love to point at the drug stuff on bitcoin's "official sites"

as has been already illustrated by the press articles, they directly reference the "official" bitcoin wiki prominently displaying drugs

Ditto for the Time article, and other prominent, recent articles in the Bitcoin Press Hits thread.

The Times article does not mention drugs once. Neither of the two articles "point at the drug stuff on bitcoin's 'official sites'". I have not seen an article that paints the availability of drugs in exchange for Bitcoin (which will not change by removing it from the wiki) in a bad light. Which articles in particular are you referring to?

And just about every business owner I poll about bitcoin is turned off by the large contingent of teenagers who naively think that we may evade [tax, drug] laws using bitcoin.

Love the ad hominems. It's completely rational to believe that a decentralized, pseudonymous electronic currency will be a useful tool in the fight against statism. One does not need to be a teenager to hold this view. Are you really that closed minded?

[mewantsbitcoins]

And just about every business owner I poll about bitcoin is turned off by the large contingent of teenagers who naively think that we may evade [tax, drug] laws using bitcoin.

Decades of brainwashing can't easily be undone.

[sortedmush]

Morally, and in principle: of course it should be on the list.
However, if we consider the argument from effect I think it's obvious that for the sake of bitcoin gaining popularity it should be left off the list.

I agree.

Morally and in principle, of course it should be on the list.
However, if we ignore the previous sentence, it should be left out.

Invoking then negating a statement of morality and principle is utter bullshit.

Want it off the list? Say so. Don't try and make yourself out to be concerned about morality and principles.

If considering arguments for/against important issues is utter bullshit, we could just all shut the hell up and create polls for every thread instead. This is why we have discussions.

Clearly not what I said. I'm all for considering arguments for and against. Just don't start with a pretty statement about concern for morality and principles, then immediately follow with an argument from effect. If your argument is from effect, fair enough. Just admit that it has no moral or principled grounding.

This is so boring, and it comes up again and again.

Wake me up when someone's got an argument for why it's morally wrong to point at drugs, or a consistent argument from principle as to why we should censor ourselves.

[Anonymous]

http://drugs.witcoin.com/

[kgo]

Morally, and in principle: of course it should be on the list.
However, if we consider the argument from effect I think it's obvious that for the sake of bitcoin gaining popularity it should be left off the list.

I agree.

Morally and in principle, of course it should be on the list.
However, if we ignore the previous sentence, it should be left out.

Invoking then negating a statement of morality and principle is utter bullshit.

Want it off the list? Say so. Don't try and make yourself out to be concerned about morality and principles.

If considering arguments for/against important issues is utter bullshit, we could just all shut the hell up and create polls for every thread instead. This is why we have discussions.

Well I think the issue here is your post is self-contradictory.  It's like saying:

"We all know that a civilized society doesn't resort to capital punishment, but the dude killed a busload of blind nuns!"

If you think the dude deserves to be executed in this case, you're not against capital punishment.

Anyway, I personally think it's clear that with a world-wide community, it's impossible to reach a consensus on what's even illegal, let alone ethical, which makes it near impossible to draw a line in the sand over drugs.

I also think it's a bit premature to do so based over some imaginary Joe Everyman.  Many of the arguments are that, "well us free-thinking libertarians don't have a problem with this, but obviously Joe Sixpack will."  I think basing policy on an imaginary adversary to BitCoin's acceptance is a bit strange.  Perhaps if there was evidence that this actually was hindering acceptance it'd be a different story.

[bitlotto]

Hmmm. Pretty much an even split between yes/no. This will be tricky! 

[xf2_org]

And just about every business owner I poll about bitcoin is turned off by the large contingent of teenagers who naively think that we may evade [tax, drug] laws using bitcoin.

Decades of brainwashing can't easily be undone.

And I could care less what people choose to do with their bodies (or their finances).

But I do care about making sure that bitcoin avoids becoming something that merchants want to avoid.

If bitcoin is only accepted by gambling and drug sites, then it will not become the revolutionary currency that frees people from their government fiat currency shackles.

There is a time and a place for everything, and that time is [college | Tor].

[mewantsbitcoins]

And just about every business owner I poll about bitcoin is turned off by the large contingent of teenagers who naively think that we may evade [tax, drug] laws using bitcoin.

Decades of brainwashing can't easily be undone.

And I could care less what people choose to do with their bodies (or their finances).

But I do care about making sure that bitcoin avoids becoming something that merchants want to avoid.

If bitcoin is only accepted by gambling and drug sites, then it will not become the revolutionary currency that frees people from their government fiat currency shackles.

There is a time and a place for everything, and that time is [college | Tor].

Not that long ago I was of the same opinion, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it is not so. What it will eventually boil down to, is the path with least resistance - if it's going to be cheaper and easier to use bitcoin than current methods of payment, it will get adopted. With time, it won't matter whether it's associated with perceived illegalities or not. Like file sharing - it is illegal, but people still do it. However for it to take off - there was a strong minded community at the core, who "did not do what they were told".
All I wanted to say is that if someone doesn't realize what are the implications of this currency, maybe we are better without them, at least for now.

[SzeChun]

It saddens me how much the community is gripped by paranoia. This paranoia that plagues the community has created illogical reasoning in the best of you.

How sad is it when our business model is
"Drug and Gambling Industries only" rather then "Corporate culture all over the world + Drug and Gambling Industries"
You reasoning is that your belief in Bit Coins is so grandeur that the US would somehow destroy or make it illegal
I'm not even gonna say how idiotic for someone to believe that laws and congress would pass the criminalization of a currency because it is "used by drug dealers"
How stupid would it be just to make the US and Western allies use USD while the rest of the world with emerging economies flourish with Bit Coins
The US would never adopt such a policy its obvious to anyone

Do you guys think a good advertisement for a company would be:
PRODUCT A THE BEST AND ONLY BUSINESS IS WITH DRUGS AND GAMBLING, BUY NOW!!!

These satire points i could fully explain in detail if anyone wishes  to know.
But i think you guys understand the point.
It seems like many of the community members are looking at this not from a business prospective, corporate or even investor prospective.
Even though-we, the early adopters are suppose to be a pioneer in something big.
It seems much of our collective decision is not going to be based on business or reason but just paranoia and personal prejudice.

[mewantsbitcoins]

It saddens me how much the community is gripped by paranoia. This paranoia that plagues the community has created illogical reasoning in the best of you.

How sad is it when our business model is
"Drug and Gambling Industries only" rather then "Corporate culture all over the world + Drug and Gambling Industries"
You reasoning is that your belief in Bit Coins is so grandeur that the US would somehow destroy or make it illegal
I'm not even gonna say how idiotic for someone to believe that laws and congress would pass the criminalization of a currency because it is "used by drug dealers"
How stupid would it be just to make the US and Western allies use USD while the rest of the world with emerging economies flourish with Bit Coins
The US would never adopt such a policy its obvious to anyone

Do you guys think a good advertisement for a company would be:
PRODUCT A THE BEST AND ONLY BUSINESS IS WITH DRUGS AND GAMBLING, BUY NOW!!!

These satire points i could fully explain in detail if anyone wishes  to know.
But i think you guys understand the point.
It seems like many of the community members are looking at this not from a business prospective, corporate or even investor prospective.
Even though-we, the early adopters are suppose to be a pioneer in something big.
It seems much of our collective decision is not going to be based on business or reason but just paranoia and personal prejudice.

How full of shit you are.
The only thing you are right about is:

It seems like many of the community members are looking at this not from a business prospective, corporate or even investor prospective.

There are a lot of very intelligent people around here and their reasoning is in order

[nanotube]

hey, i have a great idea:

why not let bitcoin.org and the 'official wiki' be 'squeaky clean', and just set up a third-party site with uncensored forum/wiki separately.

that way we can both keep the main project away from any unnecessary controversy, and have uncensored discussion/merchant listings.

i bet 'bitcoinwiki.to' and 'bitcoinforum.to' (choose any hard-for-govt-to-seize tld) are available.

[xf2_org]

why not let bitcoin.org and the 'official wiki' be 'squeaky clean', and just set up a third-party site with uncensored forum/wiki separately.

+10 sounds like a great idea, indeed...

[sortedmush]

why not let bitcoin.org and the 'official wiki' be 'squeaky clean', and just set up a third-party site with uncensored forum/wiki separately.

+10 sounds like a great idea, indeed...

-11

Sounds like a terrible idea, indeed...

Lets see you define squeaky clean. Should we get rid of everything that has a law against it somewhere in the world? That wouldn't leave us with much. Or just American laws? Or British laws?

If there are people exchanging good and services voluntarily, and not harming anyone in the process. Why can't you just leave them alone? Seriously.

[AaronM]

hey, i have a great idea:

why not let bitcoin.org and the 'official wiki' be 'squeaky clean', and just set up a third-party site with uncensored forum/wiki separately.

that way we can both keep the main project away from any unnecessary controversy, and have uncensored discussion/merchant listings.

i bet 'bitcoinwiki.to' and 'bitcoinforum.to' (choose any hard-for-govt-to-seize tld) are available.

Sounds perfect to me.

My removal of the Psychoactives section on the wiki was reverted today, but I left it because I decided an edit war was stupid.  I think the people who pay for hosting of bitcoin.it should weigh in.

[Prze_koles]

I think drugs and gambling are very important things to Bitcoin economy. We should support it but I don't think we have to do it officially.

[HostFat]

I think drugs and gambling are very important things to Bitcoin economy. We should support it but I don't think we have to do it officially.

+1

It's ok until this rule remains true:

If there are people exchanging good and services voluntarily, and not harming anyone in the process. Why can't you just leave them alone? Seriously.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Aren't we missing a few things?

1. Some things are inherently immoral, like eating humans, having sexual intercourse with a sibling/parent, and using drugs.

2. I never understood why libertarians, who think "liberty", whatever that means, is some sort of ultimate moral principle, support the manipulation of people into surrendering their liberty and free will to drug addiction (or, in the case of hallucinogenics, to a state of detachment from reality).

3. Using drugs is not a victimless crime. This is especially pronounced with cigarettes - Some people think they have the right to smoke wherever they want and subject their surroundings to noxious, foul-smelling gases. Even laws restricting places allowed for smoking have so far proven ineffective against this. At one time I had the displeasure to work with someone who smoked marijuana, when he came back from a smoking session he smelled so bad my eyes watered. What about my liberty to enjoy clean air?

So, for these reasons, as well as the obvious negative consequences for the success of Bitcoin, drug dealers should not be advertised in any official site.

[Alex Beckenham]

1. Some things are inherently immoral, like eating humans, having sexual intercourse with a sibling/parent, and using drugs.

Wow. Just wow.

I know there are some really closed-minded people around, but still get surprised whenever I encounter one.

Those things clearly go against your morals, but there's nothing inherently wrong with any of them.

[sortedmush]

Aren't we missing a few things?

1. Some things are inherently immoral, like eating humans, having sexual intercourse with a sibling/parent, and using drugs.

2. I never understood why libertarians, who think "liberty", whatever that means, is some sort of ultimate moral principle, support the manipulation of people into surrendering their liberty and free will to drug addiction (or, in the case of hallucinogenics, to a state of detachment from reality).

3. Using drugs is not a victimless crime. This is especially pronounced with cigarettes - Some people think they have the right to smoke wherever they want and subject their surroundings to noxious, foul-smelling gases. Even laws restricting places allowed for smoking have so far proven ineffective against this. At one time I had the displeasure to work with someone who smoked marijuana, when he came back from a smoking session he smelled so bad my eyes watered. What about my liberty to enjoy clean air?

So, for these reasons, as well as the obvious negative consequences for the success of Bitcoin, drug dealers should not be advertised in any official site.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.