A Warning Against Using Taint

[goodlord666]

(Didn't read the entire thread)

But I could never sleep well if I had to worry about where each one of my pennies came from. There's more enjoyable things in life than that.

Using anonymizers is fun too, and I don't care about the 1.5% fee that comes along with it.

[1714019062]

1714019062

[1714019062]

1714019062

[1714019062]

1714019062

[1714019062]

1714019062

[1714019062]

1714019062

[goodlord666]

I'd like to reiterate that -


All bad ideas/laws (that make a mess out of everything in the long term) stem from some very reasonable-looking special exceptions (such as trying to outlaw coins tainted from this or that theft).

I second that. Why is this fact being so persistently overlooked still?

This has been happening in almost every aspect of life. Just look at tax return forms.

Remember the good old days "A tithe of your harvest, or your head off!"? Then somebody complains and a slight exception is added that is meant to make it a little fairer for somebody. Then somebody else complains and another exception is added, and so forth. Until a perfectly functional system is over regulated to a complete waste of time. And you end up with a million fucks in the country sitting in office buildings doing tax evaluation instead of selling candy or rubbing my back.

Regulation is almost like cancer. You let it get its foot in the door and it'll grow until you go bald.

I'M SO FURIOUS RIGHT NOW!

(Somebody keep an eye on MtGox..)

[dscotese]

I'd like to reiterate that -


All bad ideas/laws (that make a mess out of everything in the long term) stem from some very reasonable-looking special exceptions (such as trying to outlaw coins tainted from this or that theft).

The failure to distinguish between following a good idea yourself through self-discipline and coercing everyone to follow it through legislation is a major problem.  Everyone should have a code of conduct, but no one should be forced to follow anyone else's code.

The root of the long term mess doesn't lie in reasonable-looking ideas, but in the failure of individuals to implement them personally (that is, following good ideas on their own through self-discipline, not forcing others to follow them), and the popular supposition (often supported by government propaganda) that things would be better if only everyone followed them.

It may be true that things would be better if everyone followed a particular good idea, but forcing them to do so will more than negate the benefit.  That coercion is the root of the mess.

I suspect remarkably intelligent statist apologists would be the ones to strenuously object to a good idea on the grounds that it may lead to a long term mess without addressing the coercion that creates the problem.  The strategy is two-stepped - first, prevent voluntary solutions through such objections, and when the problems they'd solve are bad enough, introduce the coercion that statists love.  But others get suckered into the same pattern.

[goodlord666]

Well, Sir,

you are free to reject tainted coins as much as I'm free to use an anonymizing service to pay you.

Let's do business.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Compulsion is a sure sign you are being fed a crap sandwich .... if it was so great you wouldn't have to be forced to eat it.

[dscotese]

Dan Kaminsky of Business Insider mentions the failures of bitcoin and then explains what I explained at the beginning of this thread.  I was not unprincipled enough to mention the fact that "possession of stolen property is a crime" since the foundation of that concept is mostly perverted from psersonal self-discipline (which would call it immoral rather than a crime) is the centralized coercive system of "justice" provided by coercive governments.  Kaminsky, on the other hand, has no problem with that centralization, perhaps because he views anything called a crime as equivalent to immoral.

I pointed our earlier in the thread that (essentially) having and following your own code of conduct is a good thing, but imposing it on others (through coercion) is a bad thing.  When you internalize this lesson, you'll understand why I love this thread so much, and why I have brought it back from the past.

If you have stolen coins, consider making some small attempt (however small it might be) to undo the damage you helped cause.  I urge others toward what I believe is the right thing to do, but I will never attempt to coerce them into doing it.

[stevegee58]

BTC are no different than greenbacks.  Who knows what path a bill has followed into your wallet?  Does anyone really care?

Bills are all contaminated ("tainted") with trace amounts of cocaine supposedly.  Maybe they were involved in a drug deal.  Does/should anyone care?

[dscotese]

BTC are no different than greenbacks.  Who knows what path a bill has followed into your wallet?  Does anyone really care?

Bills are all contaminated ("tainted") with trace amounts of cocaine supposedly.  Maybe they were involved in a drug deal.  Does/should anyone care?

Using cocaine is not immoral.  Making deals for mind altering substances is not immoral.  The difference between immoral and illegal is very very important.  It is, fundamentally, a large part of the reason that bitcoin is such a great invention.

If you buy a shovel at a used equipment shop and you find blood stains on the bowl, do/should you care?  What if it's a garage sale?

BTC are different from greenbacks for many reasons, the most important of which, in this thread, is that their entire transaction history is permanently recorded in full view of the public.

The victims of bitcoin heists have NEVER appealed to the community (that I know of) to help them recover their stolen property (until the thieves send the bitcoin back).  As I mentioned (way) earlier in the thread, without such an appeal, I don't think there's any point to paying attention to taint.  However, when a victim offers me something for helping to thwart the plans of the thief who stole their bitcoin, I will be happy to check my own holdings for taint.

[stevegee58]

Using cocaine is not immoral.  Making deals for mind altering substances is not immoral.  The difference between immoral and illegal is very very important.  It is, fundamentally, a large part of the reason that bitcoin is such a great invention.

I always thought breaking the law was immoral by definition.  I can think of situations where using cocaine is immoral, certainly selling harmful substances is immoral.

Sure, breaking the old Jim Crow laws was illegal, not immoral.  But we're talking harmful drugs here.

[kjj]

I always thought breaking the law was immoral by definition.

Sure, breaking the old Jim Crow laws was illegal, not immoral.

[stevegee58]

I always thought breaking the law was immoral by definition.

Sure, breaking the old Jim Crow laws was illegal, not immoral.

It seems contradictory but I'm talking about the *mentality* of law-breaking in general.  Stealing, killing, speeding, like that.

[dscotese]

Using cocaine is not immoral.  Making deals for mind altering substances is not immoral.  The difference between immoral and illegal is very very important.  It is, fundamentally, a large part of the reason that bitcoin is such a great invention.

I always thought breaking the law was immoral by definition.  I can think of situations where using cocaine is immoral, certainly selling harmful substances is immoral.

Sure, breaking the old Jim Crow laws was illegal, not immoral.  But we're talking harmful drugs here.

kjj, Steve doesn't need people being exasperated.  He just needs some explanation...

Steve, Consider the possibility that "breaking the law [is] immoral by definition" is similar to the feeling of stupidity that a (very intelligent) child gets when those taking care of him constantly tell him he's stupid.  It's a lie that becomes true because we aren't psychologically advanced enough yet to resist the "availability heuristic".  You can google that.

Jim Crow laws are an excellent example.  Laws against marijuana are also excellent examples.  Cocaine is dangerous - but it's a little less dangerous than sky diving, as far as I know.  If you feel obligated to do something about whatever dangerous behaviors others choose to undertake, then by all means, do so, but please don't vilify others for leaving them alone or otherwise respecting their decisions to behave dangerously.  Danger is fun!  Caveat!  It's also dangerous.  But that doesn't make it immoral.  It does make it illegal, at least when there is a nanny state involved (as there usually is).

If challenging that idea ("breaking the law [is] immoral by definition") interests you, visit voluntaryist.com or (if you want resources that are out of my control - I'm the webmaster for voluntaryist.com), just google immoral illegal different.

And I just read your post about the mentality - you're absolutely right, and that is a big problem.  Once people see that illegal is often NOT immoral, they kind of lose their conscience until they "eat of the tree of knowledge" (which means to re-grow their own conscience).  That is the result of having a nanny state.   As Nietzsche says, religion (statism is also a religion) tends to replace the self (that's you - your own conscience) with a Godhead (or a legal system).  It's our job to undo that damage.

[kjj]

kjj, Steve doesn't need people being exasperated.  He just needs some explanation...

Heh, I had just hoped to point out the contradiction so that he could examine it for himself.  My confusion was rhetorical, rather than actual.

Once you see it for yourself, it becomes obvious that following law is only moral when the law is moral.  From there, you can divide out the middle step and see that on one side you have (moral = moral) and on the other side you have (law = law), with no fundamental connection between the two.  Having laws that are moral is an ideal that we must strive for.

Ghandi and MLK both wrote fairly well on the struggle to make law moral.  Letter from a Birmingham Jail is an excellent read on the topic.

[cbeast]

Not even one joke about the taint. How this forum has changed. It is indeed the difference between immoral and illegal, depending on where you live.   XD

[justusranvier]

There's nothing special about laws; they are just opinions. The only difference between your opinions and The Law, is the people uttering those opinions will (have other people) shoot you for disagreeing with them.

[darkmule]

There's nothing special about laws; they are just opinions. The only difference between your opinions and The Law, is the people uttering those opinions will (have other people) shoot you for disagreeing with them.

Some people would consider that a rather large difference.

[justusranvier]

Some people would consider that a rather large difference.

Opinions are just opinions. They all have exactly the same validity.

The difference you are talking about is not inherent to the opinions; it is a difference in the people who state them. Some people are willing to use force to coerce everyone else into obeying their opinions, and other people are not. That is the difference.

[darkmule]

Some people would consider that a rather large difference.

Opinions are just opinions. They all have exactly the same validity.

The difference you are talking about is not inherent to the opinions; it is a difference in the people who state them. Some people are willing to use force to coerce everyone else into obeying their opinions, and other people are not. That is the difference.

Okay.  I have an opinion that killing me is a bad idea and is against the law.  I'm willing to use force to "coerce" anyone who doesn't believe that.  Wow, I'm a monster!

[QuestionAuthority]

Not even one joke about the taint. How this forum has changed. It is indeed the difference between immoral and illegal, depending on where you live.   XD

Considering the mix of this forum it would be better to call it the gooch. I'm not really concerned about using coins with taint. After all who could possibly be against coins with a chin rest? 

[bassclef]

Admittedly I entered this thread thinking it was about something different.

Carry on.