[rossjudson]

No, I get your argument. You have chosen a morally convenient abstraction that is allowing you to exclude the consequences of your actions/positions with respect to Bitcoin.

Comparing Bitcoin with a country like Iraq is pointlessly simplistic. Countries are complex social entities that aggregate behaviors through a large number of mechanisms. Bitcoin is a single mechanism whose characteristics have entirely predictable consequences.

Any sympathy for the University of California? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53214783

Bitcoin doesn't kill people. People kill people...right?

[leppr]

> Bitcoin is a single mechanism whose characteristics have entirely predictable consequences.

Cash is a single mechanism, that also predictably allows robbers to more easily offload their loot than if it was livestock, jewels or silverware. Are cash and other fungible assets automatically evil once they're on the internet?

You can cite random examples of crimes committed using Bitcoin, but that still doesn't begin to address the initial argument to which I replied: is cryptocurrency inherently evil? Will it cause more good in the world than bad once it is widely adopted?

[rossjudson]

Unlike cash, cryptocurrency provides easy access to both scale and anonymity for criminal activity...so bad, inherently. While cryptocurrencies have rewarded speculators by allowing indirect investment in crime, I do not believe this is a "good". I am not aware of any good effects for cryptocurrency. We are all aware of the substantial bad effects it enables.