5 ms·

Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world.

by imgabe 6y ago

mehrdadn 6y ago
> Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I suppose you're also against NPT? Or do nukes gain sentience in your world?
- imgabe 6y ago
  Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. > Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis. Governments "forcibly forbid" their citizens from developing nuclear weapons. Similarly so for things far less dangerous than nukes because, you know, "less dangerous than a nuke" isn't exactly synonymous with "safe". I can't top your "top-notch analysis" though, so this will be my last reply.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      Right, if we forbid one technology that's dangerous, we must also forbid any technology that could in any way be used in a negative manner, right? Cars can be used to run people over, better forbid those. A hammer can cave someone's head in, better forbid that. People can drown in water, better forbid that too. After all, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent. It's not like we would ever consider using any kind of judgement and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks for some things. That's just silly.
omginternets 6y ago
>Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I see this exact argument -- almost word-for-word -- applied to guns. I don't presume to know anything about you personally, nor about your political opinions, but I've encountered many west-coast, left-leaning, tech-industry professionals support $TECH on the basis of individual responsibility, whilst simultaneously opposing guns due to their potential for misuse. What this tells me is that the "X isn't good or bad, it just depends on who's using it" argument is weak. It's weak in the sense that it doesn't capture the nuances that might make someone support bitcoin, but not guns. (Again, I don't presume to know your thoughts on gun-ownership. I'm making a more general point.)
- imgabe 6y ago
  If an argument is applied inconsistently, that is not necessarily a flaw of the argument.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    True! But then again, some arguments lend themselves to inconsistent application, usually because they aren't precise enough. What I'm getting at (albeit awkwardly), is that I wish your argument included some notion of threshold. At what point do you consider the potential for misuse to be so extreme that the technology should be banned? If you don't address this point, you sound unreasonable to many.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      The point I meant to address here, is that Bitcoin is incidental to this crime. The criminals stole data and blackmailed people. Bitcoin didn't do that. If Bitcoin didn't exist, criminals would still steal data and blackmail people. Blackmail existed long before Bitcoin. Perhaps it's marginally easier because of Bitcoin, although accepting your payment for crimes via a system where all transactions are public record doesn't seem that smart to me, but whatever. Banning things doesn't stop criminals from using them. It doesn't even stop many otherwise law-abiding people. Many of the people who support banning guns are able to recognize that banning drugs doesn't stop people from using drugs and banning abortions doesn't stop people from getting abortions, so why should banning guns stop shootings? If you want to stop people from doing something, you need to figure out why they're doing it and remove the reason that causes them to do it. The existence of guns doesn't cause people to shoot up schools. Likewise the existence of Bitcoin doesn't cause people to blackmail. If it's not the cause, then removing it can't remove the effect.

Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world.

by imgabe 6y ago

Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world.

mehrdadn 6y ago

> Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I suppose you're also against NPT? Or do nukes gain sentience in your world?

imgabe 6y ago
Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. > Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis. Governments "forcibly forbid" their citizens from developing nuclear weapons. Similarly so for things far less dangerous than nukes because, you know, "less dangerous than a nuke" isn't exactly synonymous with "safe". I can't top your "top-notch analysis" though, so this will be my last reply.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Right, if we forbid one technology that's dangerous, we must also forbid any technology that could in any way be used in a negative manner, right? Cars can be used to run people over, better forbid those. A hammer can cave someone's head in, better forbid that. People can drown in water, better forbid that too. After all, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent. It's not like we would ever consider using any kind of judgement and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks for some things. That's just silly.

omginternets 6y ago

>Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I see this exact argument -- almost word-for-word -- applied to guns. I don't presume to know anything about you personally, nor about your political opinions, but I've encountered many west-coast, left-leaning, tech-industry professionals support $TECH on the basis of individual responsibility, whilst simultaneously opposing guns due to their potential for misuse. What this tells me is that the "X isn't good or bad, it just depends on who's using it" argument is weak. It's weak in the sense that it doesn't capture the nuances that might make someone support bitcoin, but not guns. (Again, I don't presume to know your thoughts on gun-ownership. I'm making a more general point.)

imgabe 6y ago
If an argument is applied inconsistently, that is not necessarily a flaw of the argument.
- omginternets 6y ago
  True! But then again, some arguments lend themselves to inconsistent application, usually because they aren't precise enough. What I'm getting at (albeit awkwardly), is that I wish your argument included some notion of threshold. At what point do you consider the potential for misuse to be so extreme that the technology should be banned? If you don't address this point, you sound unreasonable to many.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    The point I meant to address here, is that Bitcoin is incidental to this crime. The criminals stole data and blackmailed people. Bitcoin didn't do that. If Bitcoin didn't exist, criminals would still steal data and blackmail people. Blackmail existed long before Bitcoin. Perhaps it's marginally easier because of Bitcoin, although accepting your payment for crimes via a system where all transactions are public record doesn't seem that smart to me, but whatever. Banning things doesn't stop criminals from using them. It doesn't even stop many otherwise law-abiding people. Many of the people who support banning guns are able to recognize that banning drugs doesn't stop people from using drugs and banning abortions doesn't stop people from getting abortions, so why should banning guns stop shootings? If you want to stop people from doing something, you need to figure out why they're doing it and remove the reason that causes them to do it. The existence of guns doesn't cause people to shoot up schools. Likewise the existence of Bitcoin doesn't cause people to blackmail. If it's not the cause, then removing it can't remove the effect.