Timeline for What are the ethical implications of speculating on Bitcoin?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2017 at 19:38 | comment | added | user9166 | You wrote a ton of evasion instead of addressing the point you previously mocked -- You have yet to explain how, if devices are not ethically different from one another, as you propose, you have opinions on the distribution of guns and not shovels. Your proposed point is not a good one. And none of my criticism has been addressed. Guns vs shovels. Regulated vs unregulated charities. Businesses preferring not to deal in cash. You can't just ignore the fact they are different and say it is all about individual choices -- that is just repeating yourself rather than arguing. | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 19:24 | comment | added | user9166 | Currencies do not take care of themselves, but they are taken care of. Devices do not have ethical content, but we are obligated to protect people from dangerous devices. (Otherwise, guns and shovels should be subject to the same level of ethical consideration.) | |
| Jul 6, 2017 at 19:22 | comment | added | user9166 | Countries have banking regulations that control their currency. That matters to users. If a country does not manage its currency, to the degree that it makes international money laundering easy, it can be sanctioned in a meaningful way. Bitcoin lacks such a point of leverage, and will never be accountable to international law. Some things just need to be governable, and should not be as independent as a corporation. Whether or not something like Bitcoin should exist, no one should have a vested interest in its expansion. Use might be ok but investment or speculation is dangerous. | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 9:45 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark On the other hand, for the use of the currency, I don't think you should separate Bitcoin from other currencies, because, it is recognised as a value, so it has become ad-hoc barter subject. Whether it is created in a governmental print, or a digital institute, makes no difference for the users. If U.S. would become a place to have no obligation and responsibility what dollars are spent on, it would be still a currency. If you replace USD, there will be other currencies used for the purpose. That is why a currency on its own is not responsible for it's use. | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 9:38 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark As the question marked as unclear, we can hardly decide what was the original intention of the Asker. In title he addresses speculation, in details he addresses ethical use. As for forprofit action, it is enough to highlight the currency features of Bitcoin, as it is common to have investments in other country currencies, which need to deal with value changes, just like Bitcoin, so there you have your truth, it is not created equal, and possible to use for stock activities. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 16:22 | comment | added | user9166 | Your choice to use a straw man argument is your choice. If you didn't intend it as mocking, then you legitimately consider me stupid enough that I would still not have heard your argument after the fourth repetition. Either way, you are obviously not willing to seriously consider what I am saying. Whatever your intentions, that is out of order. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 16:05 | comment | added | user9166 | The question is not about use. It is about investment (speculation is temporary investment). So the actual question asked, which you are supposed to be trying to answer is not out of scope. You just didn't get to an answer to the actual question. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 11:56 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark I still think you translated my reasoning into the mocking against you, and that turned away our discussion. I raised the concern of handout conditions, and question of responsibility, the reasoning was to give the base, why I find it arguable. I get it you think I wanted to hurt your feelings and you consider me to tag you as an ass, but I can just assure you, it is not my intention, and not my style. If you step over that, we may continue to share opinions. I believe investing in Bitcoin is out of scope for this topic if discussed with ethics. Use and invest is much different. | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 16:20 | comment | added | user9166 | Also whether to use bitcoin is a totally different question than whether to invest in it. I would buy your argument as to saying use is defensible. I assume that means for you that investing in it is not a moral question. But again, you have no basis, and there are several bases on which that remains a question even once the other one is answered. | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 16:12 | comment | added | user9166 | See, I offered an option. You told me I am an ass. Totally different. Get it? | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | user9166 | The point you claim does not address your point is in fact directly pointed at "bitcoin is just another currency'. If 'devices' do not have moral standing and therefore bitcoin is as good as any other currency then mechanical devices do not have moral standing and guns are as moral as shovels. I disagree. I assumed this was a place we would have to agree to disagree unless you gave a real basis for your two premises. I said "IF you... THEN maybe X or Y". Different from saying 'YOU THINK X... let me mock the thought that I assume you have.' | |
| Jun 25, 2017 at 11:24 | comment | added | Sonic | I did address your reason, showed how it is conflicting, and since that you state I force something down on you. It was you, who raised "Guns don't kill people" argument, and keeping me onto it...so who is forcing what on the other one? Your reasons are disconnected from the original question and the given answer, uncompetitive, and you deny to elaborate them. You want to stop? Fine, then do that. But you won't leave this discussion setting me as bad guy. I raised 11 aspects on your 5. Finally to react on your assumption:I do not own cryptocurrency, I don't need to avoid Switzerland and alike. | |
| Jun 24, 2017 at 15:46 | comment | added | user9166 | Don't really care. You are also not addressing what I am saying, I have already said that I do not wish to continue. And if you are guessing, you admit you are guessing, instead of putting up a straw man and shoving it down my throat. Let me say it again, if your point is bascially the 'guns don't kill people argument' I AM NOT WILLING TO ADDRESS THAT. It depends to much on the underlying ethical system, and you have not put one forward. | |
| Jun 24, 2017 at 8:04 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark Well, you did not reflect on my key points, just kept on not all currency are the same, and if I don't agree, then you don't dispute it. You left me no option, than to try to figure your POV in details, since you declared you will not elaborate it. Sorry that it makes you upset. I did not say that you are an idiot, just tried to apply in straight logic what you said. Yes it is provocative. But I will not let a negated statement sporting current fashionable reasons to debate an academic attempt to answer the question. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 13:40 | comment | added | user9166 | No, not at all. That cannot be garnered from anything I said. How is your fantasy my reasoning? Don't just shove words in my mouth and pretend I am an idiot who would actually say them. I am done trying to talk to you. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:07 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark With guns I consider, their existence is not bad, but unchecked hand out is. By your reasoning the matter is if I choose between a shotgun or a magnum to use, not my mental state, and if I happen to kill someone, that was the illdoing of the weapon, not the person. This is avoiding responsibility. For cui bono POV, if you cease a tool, the origins of intention will find another one, so you did not stop the will for wrongdoing. For the fuss reason, if we don't care, we just actually let it happen, and that contradicts the fact, that Joebevo raised this question. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 18:16 | comment | added | user9166 | This is not worthwhile. If you don't consider the 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' style of argument to be a false equivalency, I am not going to play it out in detail. Devices and conduits are not all created equal, and from certain ethical positions, choosing between them matters. From a cui bono POV, guns, charities that fund ISIS, and currencies that are known to support legal evasion are worse than the alternatives -- from a less situationalist POV, we should not fuss over outcomes we only might control to a tiny degree. | |
| Jun 22, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark In the aspect to measure, does Bitcoin itself allow unethical acts to be done, it is equal with other currencies. You can use paypal, country banknotes, but even barter to cover unethical acts. Simply making Bitcoin disappear will not stop unethical acts, so marking Bitcoin as unethical and base for covering unethical acts is wrong. Black markets did not appear because Bitcoin is invented. To answer the question in it's current form, Bitcoin is just a currency. Currency does no "nefarious" acts. People do. If people see no use of Bitcoin, they just won't use it. | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 15:42 | comment | added | user9166 | The point is that this is a false equivalency. Making all cryptocurrencies look equal is like making all charities look equal. You might want to avoid Swiss or Cayman Island banks and other places that will not allow for a flow-of-money check, but traditional ways of following money are not impeded by electronic transfers. The money has to come from somewhere. So all encrypted transfers are not created equal. | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 7:45 | comment | added | Sonic | @jobermark, What people do to currency is not the faulty of the currency. What's more, this currency is used in cyberworld, which is a feat, that you discuss unseparated from it's currency feature, and I advise highly to avoid. As I wrote, cryptocurrency has the same lack of fraud check, as a charity has. If the charities would be forced to be done in transparent process, it would be harder to support any undesirable act. Is fraud check a currency attribute? No, it is regulation attribute. If people do not want to check up, how and where the charity money go, that is people problem. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 20:57 | comment | added | user9166 | Similarly, we know charitable donations go to ISIS, but that does not mean we have to accept that either all charities are bad or absolve us of thinking about whether specific ones are. We can tell cases apart. This is a currency with more illegal use than other currencies, so making the analogy that all currencies are alike is like making the analogy that all charities are alike. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 20:46 | comment | added | user9166 | But people know this about cash, too. And if someone asks to be paid in cash, for any significant sum, most folks balk -- they assume, particularly in the U.S. -- that the person is of ambiguous immigration status, or is a felon evading tracking. So if this bothers people already, arguments that say, 'don't let that bother you' are off base. | |
| Jun 19, 2017 at 13:00 | history | answered | Sonic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |