[raw23]

Bitcoin is a neutral technology, think of it like cash. Buying illegal things is always done with cash but it doesn't mean we should get rid of cash altogether.

Regardless even if we came to the collective decision that we wanted to get rid of bitcoin, its not feasible due to its decentralized nature.

[dwaltrip]

I used to agree with the "neutral technology" line of reasoning, however I think my view has changed. Everything has an orientation to it, enabling or strengthening certain dynamics, but not others. These characteristics are not static, as they depend on the broader context, and can change rapidly and unpredictably sometimes -- yet they can be quite important and should be considered.

I would argue the concept of "perfect neutrality" is a non-sequitur. When someone says something is very neutral, it seems to me they are actually noticing that something either has near universal acceptance in the current mind-share or is simply non-consequential such that no one really cares one way or another.

It reminds me "inherent value" (the general philosophical concept, not the financial term with very specific meaning), which a lot of thinkers find to be a misguided concept.

That's not to say we should ban bitcoin. And even if we wanted to, as you said, attempting to do so would be a rather absurd endeavor.

[eternalban]

> Everything has an orientation to it

This seems true at face value. Consider the cutting edge technology aka as a knife, with an inherent bias for cutting things.

Dinner time. Killing time. ("Food is murder"?)

It is the context of utility of technology that is the determining factor. A technology, imo, can be deemed directly culpable of ill effects IFF it permits no other utility context other than that which results in morally or ethically unaceptable outcomes.

Ever nuclear weapons can be used for good, you know. (Extinguish fires, for example.)

[zaphar]

I don't think that's a particularly useful restriction. I think a restriction that factors in the overall utility vs hard of something.

You can pretty much always find a non harmful use for anything so requiring no non harmful users is effectively useless as a criteria.

[Kiro]

> it doesn't mean we should get rid of cash altogether

I can't remember the last time I saw physical cash. The only ones I know who are still using cash are drug dealers. Not saying it should be banned but it's almost gone in my country already.

[delecti]

> The only ones I know who are still using cash are drug dealers

I was about to say "that's not true, the pot stores are cash only too", before realizing that from the perspective of the Feds that's the same thing.

So I guess my real answer is non-business transactions, like buying things on craigslist, or paying my cat sitter.

[Kiro]

> like buying things on craigslist, or paying my cat sitter

In my country you send money to other people with an app using their telephone number. It's developed as a joint venture between all banks.

[jessaustin]

ISTM that's a group that already have more than enough power to screw us over... Has this app been audited?

[Kiro]

No idea. The convenience is more important to me personally than the risk of being screwed over but since everyone is using it I presume there are people putting pressure back.

[stinos]

Wow, out of interest, where do you live? Cash is still going strong in Western Europe.

[kalleboo]

His description matches Sweden

[the_cat_kittles]

gigging musicians are paid in cash really often

[the_cat_kittles]

yes i agree its not going away. but im curious if public perception has shifted at all since it was first becoming popular. my opinion has changed.