[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.