pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 5 replies \ @beameduplol 12h \ on: DISCUSS: "If you ever made a sat from spam, you are a bad actor" bitcoin
It depends on the intention... I don't think the developers from back then would've expected the rather niche features of Bitcoin to start being used too much.
For development/testing purposes as to see what Bitcoin can do, it's good, but if you still support it today with the war going on, then maybe you're not built for Bitcoin
what about bitcoin is for enemies?
reply
Byproduct of being ungoverned right.
reply
if the state uses bitcoin to pay the police it uses to throw a person in jail and confiscate their bitcoin, is this understanding the ethical principles the whole system is built around or not?
reply
Assuming I've read your reply right:
As long as it's being used for monetary purposes.
Confiscation of funds from a thief(?) is a valid monetary transaction. So is paying out a worker for their efforts.
reply
I was thinking about the statement in your original post "It depends on intention" -- although admittedly I was stretching it a bit.
if you still support it today with the war going on, then maybe you're not built for Bitcoin
Bitcoin should always be at war. That's the nature of a permissionless system. If its concepts only work when people agree on everything, then it's not very useful.
I think it is useful, though. It's useful because it gives humans a way to agree even when they disagree about almost everything.
The only thing required of a person in order to use bitcoin is to agree to accept it. But this is also the only tool we have to actually enforce the rules (and call a transaction invalid) -- don't accept the coin if you don't like it.
reply