4 ms·

> If you're going to run a casino (whose entire business model is based on exploiting weaknesses of others for profit), There are plenty of casios, and many of

> If you're going to run a casino (whose entire business model is based on exploiting weaknesses of others for profit), There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law. People who choose to gamble there might be exploited by some definition, but it is consentual. But Primedice is a casino that uses bitcoin to allow users to circumvent local gambling laws, and thus exploits weakness in criminal laws. (I will not discuss the morality of current anti-gambling laws in the US, as any rational person can see the hypocrisy in the current system of state-sponsored lotteries and state-granted casino monopolies) > don't be surprised if people try to exploit your weaknesses for profit. Primedice reusing a nonce/seed is like a casino dealing blackjack from a marked deck. It is so incredibly stupid that you are guaranteed to have someone notice, and clean you out while still playing by yor rules. Note that they are offering a reward for the "return of the [bit]coins". I assume that means they are offering that if someone hacks a bitcoin wallet and gives them the proceeds, they will share a fraction of the stolen assets. I would happily make the same offer; paying random people who give me bitcoins from hacked wallets some of the stolen bitcoin, except that I'm not an exploitive, criminal-minded narcissist rationalizing theft to support the operation of a gambling site based on a cyber-currency designed to facilitate extra-legal activity.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
>There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law. There are plenty of Nazis, and many of them comply with the law.
- genericuser 11y ago
  And most countries with a sense of free-speech try to(pretend to, would ideally, take your pick depending on your view of how successful free-speech is) respect the law biding citizen's freedom to hold whatever views they want even if they are ridiculous. I feel like unless you are trying to troll, it is best to avoid all analogies that compare current events to what would be deemed by many as 'historical evil doers'.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I meant only to attack the unsoundness of the argument being presented. Just because entities comply with "laws", which may have been created (and are modifiable) by the very same entities, does not provide any type of moral, or otherwise, justification that the entities' actions are reasonable, acceptable, exemplary, or other. In fact, some Nazi's actually tried to argue something exactly analogous to what the sentence argued: that complying with the law can be used as axiomatic justification for any behavior. I only state that such logic is fallacious.
    - genericuser 11y ago
      I can see that line of thought being a fine one to voice, however I am curious how you expected others to infer all of it simply from your comparison of casinos to nazis. As when I read it my initial reaction was simply that you were calling casinos nazis, and if I were to ignore this reply I would still see it as the most logical way to interpret the post.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        There are multiple symmetries (or near symmetries) in the construction of the post and the argument itself. >There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law. >There are plenty of Nazis , and many of them comply with the law. Basically, if you believe the first sentence is legitimate, I have shown you a second sentence that is of equally legitimate construction. It is grammatically correct and has real semantic meaning. In fact, it is a true statement, just as the first statement (probably) is. The fact that the second statement is true and is as legitimate as the first might strike a reader and cause them to think more about it. Nazis rose to power by crafting law and used it to drive people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. When some of those people were caught and tried for their actions, some of them argued that they did nothing wrong because they were merely complying with the law. The sentences in comparison make the (implicit) argument that 'complying with the law' is somehow relevant to the exculpation of the actions of the entity in question. Many consider this to be absurd.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> I assume that means they are offering that if someone hacks a bitcoin wallet and gives them the proceeds, they will share a fraction of the stolen assets. I'd assume that what they're saying is: if you provide information that lets them identify Hufflepuff, and they successfully sue him for the money, then they'll reward you. My interpretation doesn't require you to have control of the bitcoins at any point, and also explains why they provided their information about the guy.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law. There are plenty of Nazis, and many of them comply with the law.

genericuser 11y ago
And most countries with a sense of free-speech try to(pretend to, would ideally, take your pick depending on your view of how successful free-speech is) respect the law biding citizen's freedom to hold whatever views they want even if they are ridiculous. I feel like unless you are trying to troll, it is best to avoid all analogies that compare current events to what would be deemed by many as 'historical evil doers'.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I meant only to attack the unsoundness of the argument being presented. Just because entities comply with "laws", which may have been created (and are modifiable) by the very same entities, does not provide any type of moral, or otherwise, justification that the entities' actions are reasonable, acceptable, exemplary, or other. In fact, some Nazi's actually tried to argue something exactly analogous to what the sentence argued: that complying with the law can be used as axiomatic justification for any behavior. I only state that such logic is fallacious.
  - genericuser 11y ago
    I can see that line of thought being a fine one to voice, however I am curious how you expected others to infer all of it simply from your comparison of casinos to nazis. As when I read it my initial reaction was simply that you were calling casinos nazis, and if I were to ignore this reply I would still see it as the most logical way to interpret the post.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      There are multiple symmetries (or near symmetries) in the construction of the post and the argument itself. >There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law. >There are plenty of Nazis , and many of them comply with the law. Basically, if you believe the first sentence is legitimate, I have shown you a second sentence that is of equally legitimate construction. It is grammatically correct and has real semantic meaning. In fact, it is a true statement, just as the first statement (probably) is. The fact that the second statement is true and is as legitimate as the first might strike a reader and cause them to think more about it. Nazis rose to power by crafting law and used it to drive people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. When some of those people were caught and tried for their actions, some of them argued that they did nothing wrong because they were merely complying with the law. The sentences in comparison make the (implicit) argument that 'complying with the law' is somehow relevant to the exculpation of the actions of the entity in question. Many consider this to be absurd.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> I assume that means they are offering that if someone hacks a bitcoin wallet and gives them the proceeds, they will share a fraction of the stolen assets. I'd assume that what they're saying is: if you provide information that lets them identify Hufflepuff, and they successfully sue him for the money, then they'll reward you. My interpretation doesn't require you to have control of the bitcoins at any point, and also explains why they provided their information about the guy.