Quote from: fergalish on March 03, 2010, 07:16:05 PM

Quote from: ihrhase on March 02, 2010, 09:08:05 PM

Interest is a market phenomenon, it is an application of time in economics, so I will have to disagree with your dishonest connotation to interest...

Excellent, this is an interesting debate that goes back hundreds of years. Many people would say that inflation is a market phenomenon too. Do you realise that any economy which permits charging interest on a loan *requires* inflation? The rich entity charging interest gets *all* their capital back, *plus* the interest. If no extra money is being injected into the economy (i.e. no inflation), eventually the interest charger collects all the money in circulation and the currency fails.

Except that inflation requires someone to add to the currency, this is irrelevant to the market's existence, just the the money's standing in the market...
Interest on loans do not require inflation, they require accumulation of wealth, if there is 100 dollars in the world and I have 10, and I give you 10 as a loan with the condition that I will receive 11 back in the future, both of us knowing that there is only 100 total dollars, there is no way you can pay me back plus interest in dollars without accumulating wealth and trading it for others dollars.

Your Strawman presumes one person holds all the money, if such is the case, I know it is impossible to be paid interest in dollars...

If I acquire all bitcoins ever produced (21M), and lend some to you, I know full well it is impossible for you to pay interest in bitcoins, because I cannot inflate, nor presumably anyone else, beyond the stated cap in the FAQ. I would therefore logically look for something else of value to assign as an interest payment...

This of course is leaving out the logical issues of the nature of value of an exchange medium that is not being used in exchange...

Quote from: fergalish on March 03, 2010, 07:16:05 PM

Quote from: ihrhase on March 02, 2010, 09:08:05 PM

Basically if it is your opinion that the purchase or sale of drugs is "dishonest" then do not engage in such practices...

"dishonest" was perhaps inappropriate. Some people *would* consider drug dealing dishonest (exploitation of another's weakness/addiction etc), but nonetheless, it's illegal, and that's what counts in this discussion. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is, it's illegal, and Big Gov will restrict your liberty if it catches you.

The arbitrary nature of your argument parallels the government's arbitrary nature of deciding what is or is not illegal...

Quote from: fergalish on March 03, 2010, 07:16:05 PM

Quote from: ihrhase on March 02, 2010, 09:08:05 PM

If I were to sell tobacco I grew at my home, using bitcoin as a medium of exchange, am I using it dishonestly?

You're not using bitcoin dishonestly, unless you somehow use your economic power or prowess to distort the market to make an unfair profit. But, that's aside from the issue of whether tobacco-dealing is illegal or dishonest, or whatever. See the difference?
Suppose I collected $100 from each of my 9 friends, went out and bought $1000 worth of illegal substance X, then went home, and gave each of them $90 worth, and kept the remaining $190 worth for myself telling them it was more expensive than usual. Would my friends think I'm being dishonest if they found out (ignore "courier" fees etc)? Because I bought illegal substance X? Or because I didn't share it evenly?

Who decides what is unfair? Market distortion in reality requires a state mandate, since this is outside the state mandate field, that should be a non issue...
Well you lied in your example, in relation to free market logic, you have earned, through courier-ship and inherent risk of your act a 10% profit from your friends, if you stated from the get go that you charged a $10 fee for the service then they had the opportunity to decide to use you or go about the risk themselves, you would be more honest.

How would any business make any profit if they sold all products for strict cost?