The Ultimate Dilemma

[Matthew N. Wright]

No one here who knows me, my attitude, my beliefs and my freshness to economics, philosophy and politics could ever assume that the people I work with are in constant agreement with me. What they are in agreement with is the fact that I don't mind criticizing myself and correcting course.

I have recently called out CoinExchanger on the forums for being the outright scammer that I truly believe they are. Their constant miss-representation, endless self-promotion, absurd anti-Bitcoin sentiment and obsession with situations that allow for no prosecution of their actions whatsoever leave no room for anything but a defensive attitude towards them.

This is me growing up though, and let me tell you, it's incredibly hard.

I was raised a Christian in Kentucky, parents homeschooled me, and I have been fighting it ever since. My beliefs and philosophy can all be traced back to one basic belief-- life is not about a change itself, but about being good at changing all the time. Picking programming as first profession at 13 made that painfully clear to me.

The lesson I am learning here is that right or wrong, our world governments do in fact have too much power. In breaking it down to its major points, what CoinExchanger is offering is just an anonymous exchange medium for people who don't want to have to follow the rules.

I'm not a moralfag, I'm an opportunist. If my own friends were running such an operation, I'd be down their throats pushing them for transparency and honesty, but I wouldn't be against the actual anonymity. This is the hard part to swallow-- the more I search my heart, the more I am seeing that my hostility for CoinExchanger is mostly related to their presentation and my own theories on who they are and what they're doing.

I understand that the future of a society is gloomy when people cannot recognize this weakness in themselves, and I wanted to publicly humiliate myself by admitting that I fell for this human weakness yesterday in the heat of what appears to be arguable business-suicide for CoinExchanger.

Here are the facts regarding CoinExchanger and what I have been able to conclude to present:

His claims that he has 12k coins cannot be proved as he has not provided any proof of this.

His claims that he has even 1 customer cannot be proved as no one is willing to stand up and admit it.

None of this seems to matter though, as the more pressing question is--- do we really want anonymity in our community?


Is it okay that CoinExchanger is offering an exchange that might in fact be breaking a law someplace? If so, why do MtGox need to follow AML procedures? Is it just because they deal in wire transfers?

Is a service like Bitscalper (who although I haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I have reason to believe they are the same person) an acceptable service for the bitcoin community?


Some of the more experienced members here may be reading this thread and cackling, "Man, what a moron. He's totally lost it.". What you're reading are the words of someone who is born to fight for causes, but isn't sure which cause is really worth fighting for.

I admit that it would give me great pleasure to stomp all over MyBitcoin, BitScalper, CoinExchanger, etc for personal reasons, but in the long run, should all situations be handled by customers simply not using anonymous services and putting them out of business?

Doesn't common sense say that no matter what happens, if something is anonymous, it shouldn't be trusted because the risk is too high?

Are there any parameters that can be created that would change this?

As a community, should we bite the bullet and work towards this anonymity being possible with safety or keep holding on to our previous beliefs?


I am ready to humble myself and work towards an entirely new mindset, one where "exchanges" like CoinExchanger can actually exist without me saying a word otherwise, but there are just too many unanswered questions.

Should his claim that he has 12,000BTC of the stolen coins not be investigated? Doesn't just brushing it off as "whatever, it's anonymous, give it up" basically saying it's okay to steal from each other because "Bitcoin"? Can we ever get rid of the social side of Bitcoin to reach a completely digital nature of rewards and repercussions? What good is reputation if everyone is anonymous? Is the very ideal behind repercussions wrong and only legitimate in a moral setting?

I'm lost guys. Help me out here, because I feel like I'm sitting on the kill switch for CoinExchanger and something about it just feels like continuing the bad, old system, and counter productive to the new system.


P.S. Get over yourselves. I am not speaking as any representative of any magazine or anything else. I'm speaking as Matthew, one of the most energetic Bitcoiners in the world.

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

I'm glad you're so vocal and involved, Matthew. Without you, the forums might be over run by tin foil hat wearing Libertards.

Keep up the good work, sir.

-Fake caveman lawyer

[the joint]

If nobody had gotten hurt by the scams (including peripheral effects to the entire Bitcoin economy and all that have vested interests in it), would you have gone to the lengths that you did, conducting your own personal investigation to try to get to the truth of the matter?

From an outside perspective, I think you did it because you don't want to see people get hurt.  The question of whether or not allowing virutal-unknowns the potential to scam hundreds of people is worth the possibility that somehow, someday, our small little digital corner will evolve into some variation of the global, decentralized market that we all wish to see is a tough one.  The probabilities of this happening are incalculable, but you knew you had an opportunity to directly help people right here, right now.

I think your concern is noble, and the efforts you undertook are also noble.  But, only you know what your intentions are.  Sometimes, and quite often, doing the right thing can result in some pretty epic backlash.  Keep your head on straight and don't be led astray by people who are likely more confused about their own values than you are.  

[Matthew N. Wright]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I grew up in a world with a very clearly defined idea of morals and theft, and now I'm learning that by some standards everyone is a criminal.

That leads me to believe that maybe instead of individuals being wrong, the rules might be inappropriate and represent improper standards.

I think the biggest cause of this is that Bitcoin is something completely new and kind of goes beyond traditional trains of thought.

If nobody had gotten hurt by the scams (including peripheral effects to the entire Bitcoin economy and all that have vested interests in it), would you have gone to the lengths that you did, conducting your own personal investigation to try to get to the truth of the matter?

I think I react to the ones that I smell are preying on people and nothing more. I have invited known scammers to work with me to use their honest resources (although I keep them out of any position of power or responsibility) so I don't think it's the illegality that gets to me, it's the intentions of people. I honestly felt Bitscalper's intentions were honest in the beginning, and it progressed into a battle against common sense. CoinExchanger was a no-brainer common sensical scam waiting to happen, although he is hiding behind the argument of "anonymity doesn't mean scammer". 

From an outside perspective, I think you did it because you don't want to see people get hurt.  The question of whether or not allowing virutal-unknowns the potential to scam hundreds of people is worth the possibility that somehow, someday, our small little digital corner will evolve into some variation of the global, decentralized market that we all wish to see is a tough one.  The probabilities of this happening are incalculable, but you knew you had an opportunity to directly help people right here, right now.

I admit I need work on my follow-through, but sometimes it seems like the world is standing still when they should be moving. In this thread, I'm just trying to see if I am right for moving or if everyone else is frozen because there is a veloceraptor right behind me.

I think your concern is noble, and the efforts you undertook are also noble.  But, only you know what your intentions are.  Sometimes, and quite often, doing the right thing can result in some pretty epic backlash.  Keep your head on straight and don't be led astray by people who are likely more confused about their own values than you are. 

Well as the other threads are starting to wreak of person vendettas on my part, I don't think I should waste any time defending my intentions-- instead I'd rather focus on the question-- is it alright for someone to operate a business anonymously? Should we be supporting someone who claims to have stolen coins and basically flips off the rest of the community who has a problem with it? Does it even matter what they do or how they do it so long as they didn't steal it themselves?

I feel like this is a libertarian argument and maybe I've been reading too much about Ron Paul lately.

[muyuu]

I honestly believe you shouldn't be throwing accusations without proof, it strongly contradicts your posts about presumption of innocence.

On the rest I've already given my opinion in other threads about all this fiasco.

[Jon]

As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses. It's as if I am reading Plato abridged.

People will do whatever is in there power. No subjective good or evil changes anything. Just focus on liberating yourself and others, give them the power to resist what they do not desire. That's all one can do.

Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, they are the true Messiahs - Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be shorn sheep. Blessed are the valiant for they shall obtain great treasure - Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows

- Ragnar Redbeard

[Matthew N. Wright]

As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.

That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads.

[Jon]

As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.

That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads.

Tell me, what justification is there for a universal moral good? Can tyranny of such a scale ever be fully enforceable?

[jojo69]

the coinexchanger guy is a retarded douche, that much is clear

You, Matthew, have the makings of a zealot, but the fact that you recognize this and question yourself means you are not a retarded douche

[Matthew N. Wright]

As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.

That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads.

Tell me, what justification is there for a universal moral good? Can tyranny of such a scale ever be fully enforceable?

With all due respect, I'm asking the adults a question of social responsibility. I don't really think I'll have much to gain from an 18 year old parroting propaganda he learned in high school unless I was asking something particular about the philosophical beliefs of certain people in the world.

What I am looking for more is an experienced opinion on anonymity in the future of Bitcoin I think.

[Hawker]

Matt - you can't combine anonymity and transparency. But even with transparency, you still get ripped off.  Its better to focus on structures that make fraud difficult than on worrying about the fact you can't identify the counter-party.

[Jon]

As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.

That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads.

Tell me, what justification is there for a universal moral good? Can tyranny of such a scale ever be fully enforceable?

With all due respect, I'm asking the adults a question of social responsibility. I don't really think I'll have much to gain from an 18 year old parroting propaganda he learned in high school unless I was asking something particular about the philosophical beliefs of certain people in the world.

What I am looking for more is an experienced opinion on anonymity in the future of Bitcoin I think.

All you are going to get is stuff parroted from high school. I used to volunteer at retirement homes. Old people are practically infants in reverse most of the time. Most people never fully grow up, Matthew. Experience means squat. To learn and to grow requires constant skepticism. Most people preach blind faith and trust.

Imagine how stupid the average person is. Most of them are far more ignorant than that.

If you ever grow Matthew, you'll realize what I've meant. What I offer is a scary, objective perspective; something most people can't handle. Most people like to have their hand held. They like to be comforted. I, on the other hand, can stand on my own.

You can too, if you try.

[Kettenmonster]

... Should his claim that he has 12,000BTC of the stolen coins not be investigated? ....

Those who lost these coins are up to decide this. It is their case not mine.
If its going to be invertigated only police (sloppily called so) can do so.
Confiscation and such stuff can also only be done by legal authorities.

Anything violating these rules will start a vigilante war. Thus ruining the faith in and such the value of bitcoins.

[stochastic]

How about everyone ignore Boss like I do.  Whenever Boss posts in a thread it just becomes a flame war with him.  See Gavin's post on people that do not contribute anything constructive to topics.  Boss replies to everyone's reply and soon the thread is about Boss and not about the topic.

Matthew was talking about his person reasons for being pissed off about the constant scams.  Now there are posts about homeschooling.

I think it is fine if people want to force some kind of accountability and/or regulation of bitcoin.  I also think it is fine if other people go deeper into anonymous land using bitcoin.

[theymos]

Anonymity allows a service to opt out of the legal system (to some degree). Without legal restrictions, services can operate with much lower cost and risk, though users of the service will have higher risk. I don't see anything morally wrong with it as long as the service doesn't pretend to be non-anonymous -- users can weigh lower costs with higher risks and make their own decisions.

Doesn't common sense say that no matter what happens, if something is anonymous, it shouldn't be trusted because the risk is too high?

It's reasonable to trust anonymous services when it's more profitable for them to operate legitimately than to steal everyone's money. This is common for services that don't hold onto customer money for long periods of time, such as stores.

I am ready to humble myself and work towards an entirely new mindset, one where "exchanges" like CoinExchanger can actually exist without me saying a word otherwise, but there are just too many unanswered questions.

There's nothing wrong with you investigating them or pointing out that they are very risky to use. Arguing that risky, anonymous, or scammy services should be prevented from existing is incorrect in my opinion -- let the customers decide for themselves.

Should his claim that he has 12,000BTC of the stolen coins not be investigated?

Nothing wrong with investigating it and revealing the truth. It'll give customers more info about the service's trustworthiness. Stealing BTC is obviously a sign of serious immorality, and knowingly storing stolen coins could also be seen as immoral.

What good is reputation if everyone is anonymous?

Building a reputation is expensive. So having a good reputation can be seen as a sort of security deposit.

[Portnoy]

Experience means squat. To learn and to grow requires constant skepticism.

I fail to see the wisdom ( or coherency, frankly ) in your statements. No doubt it is because I am encumbered by all this damned life experience.  

You nihilists are all alike.  You only go half-way ( which, as you guessed, is better than a lot, if not most, people who barely get started ).
You only see everything as nothing and empty because you never leave your own head.
 
There is a real world out here, believe it or not.  Beyond dogma, yes... and also beyond the conceits of assuming that all there is is
what can be held in ones philosophies, and if they are vacant then all must be.      

How's that for a spew of over-educated pretentious shithead tripe.    

[hazek]

How strange that I would just finish watching a 50min long talk on morality and then stumble into this thread.

Matthew I think you need to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

It has important evidence that explains a lot about the biology of morality and our answers to moral questions. I think it would do you good to know how the process of answering a  moral question works before you go on and answer the question.

[Matthew N. Wright]

One cannot leave their own head, their own perception, if you will.

It's called learning new perceptions and it's done through experience. Your existentialist hot air is wasted here.

Oh and I do enjoy what I percieve, Portnoy, make no mistake.

If you watch child rape porn, do you enjoy the perception of it?

It's all a matter of preference in the end. I never denied others had preferences and desires. All I do acknowledge is that it's all subjective in accordance to individual perception; thus to me, reality seems vacant and open to many possibilities. It will not stand under your, one culture's or a god's desires. It stands under only the powers that be and act.

You keep parroting Socrates and pretending to be enlightened, but you never apply what you speak to your own life. Do you know what Socrates would call you? A fool.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What the fuck is a "Delimma"?

Visit, www.coinexchanger.com

Dilemma.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Also, I hate Socrates.

If anybody is similar to me, it's Stirner, Ragnar Redbeard and Nietzsche.

Why would you hate Socrates? Isn't he just something you perceive?

Also, why do you suck at English and modesty so bad? You say that they are similar to you when they've all lived before you. You could at the very most claim that you are similar to them (since you are the subject of conversation), but even that is a hard pill to swallow when they did something with their lives.