With the current mindset, if authorities somehow find someone with "tainted" coins on an address they control, they'll immediately have their heads at stake and their property seized...
As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.
As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.
But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users. Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"? How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue? I'm sorry unamis, I like your posts, but I have to say this. Where does the assumption come from that all laws are moral?
I think what Burt did would be illegal if we were talking about fiat currency. But since my knowledge on American law is pretty low, I might be wrong. If what Burt did was illegal, then they probably wouldn't "agree on disagreeing" that it wasn't a business. Or at least, they shouldn't.
Maybe I have a too optimistic vision on laws and justice around the world.
You have a valid point in saying that Bitcoin cuts to the heart of the issue, but I think Bitcoin is far from legal, or illegal. It is also far from immoral. It is a bit above rules and laws.
I guess I have no extra arguments and don't really have anything else to add to this thread at this moment... Your post got me thinking a bit
