4 ms·
Doesn't that analogy break down at the sale step? I.e. shitcoin owners might still beleive their coins are valuable when they sell them, thus are not guilty of
by brutusborn 4y ago
Doesn't that analogy break down at the sale step? I.e. shitcoin owners might still beleive their coins are valuable when they sell them, thus are not guilty of anything morally.
- gorgoiler 4y agoThat’s a good point. If someone has to sell their coin to pay an unexpected vet bill, does that still count as a confession of immorality? In the end, their actions boil down to admitting that the only good thing you can do with a shitcoin is sell it. If you persuaded the vet to fix little Mittens in exchange for some shitcoin are you demonstrating you are a true and moral believer in the value of this asset, or are you just immorally passing the bag in a novel way? I’m going with the latter.
- notch656a 4y agoI'm going to go to Yap and tell them their ancestors were immoral shitbags. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Yap_license_plate_2000_series.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Yap_lice...
- californical 4y agoI feel like this is revisionist history — the same could be said for the USD if it came crashing down eventually. Or maybe other currencies which are more likely to fail in the near future. Are you immoral for ever having used them? Most (all?) currencies are fiat anyways, so nearly equivalent in value.
- gorgoiler 4y agoCurrencies are usually backed by something useful, like goods or resources or labor. USD and oil are linked globally for example. The problem with these new currencies is that the people proposing them offer nothing of substance other than fear — the fear of missing out.