I beg to partly differ.
The idea of being able to transfer digital value safely without middlemen is great and has never been available before.
The implementation is bad in the sense that it’s ecologically disastrous and economically unfit.
I beg to partly differ.
The idea of being able to transfer digital value safely without middlemen is great and has never been available before.
The implementation is bad in the sense that it’s ecologically disastrous and economically unfit.
It’s great that the idea got implemented in ways that don’t have the ecological footprint Bitcoin has!
I’m glad Bitcoin brought this idea to life. But it’s about time for Bitcoin to resign.
Right, but that doesn’t consider the part where it’s about
people will suffer who had no say in this or may actually not be eligible for vaccinations.
It’s one thing to risk your own health/life, but an entirely different thing to risk others’ health/lives.
Do you know the old saying:
if privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.
Just because people might do stuff with things that isn’t intended or even illegal doesn’t mean you should be banning said things.
Otherwise we’d be in a world where we have no kitchen knives, axes, wrenches, food, money, cars, planes, ships, bikes, hands, feet - you know what I mean?
I wonder - and I mean this seriouslyand not in an /s way - what happens, if you object “bOth SiDeS” with “Why not vote for Harris then?”?
Surely you won’t convince a Trumpologist this way.
But doesn’t that also give leeway to present voting for Harris as equally good choice in the eyes of Trumpologists?