My point is that the entire concept of "what Bitcoin was created for" is useless when applied to something like Bitcoin. It's irrelevant. This was always going to happen. Someone will always use Bitcoin in some way that someone else disagrees with, including Satoshi. I actually happen to agree with the sentiment, but I don't agree that it matters or even should due to the fundamental freedom associated with open money. People will do stupid shit with it and must be free to if we wish to preserve the thing. Of course we all have opinions on what is and isnt stupid, but Satoshi is often presented as some higher standard for how everyone should act and think. It's very religious.
Replies (3)
The argument would be much richer without mentioning Satoshi. That's my most important point here. It's an appeal to authority. Just make a reasoned argument against a thing. "Satoshi didn't intend..." weakens almost every argument where I've seen it.
Once again, my Satoshi reference isn't a diktat for how people ought to use btc, however it's an opinion I am expressing based on a perceived threat and something else that i perceive to be of greater consequence
Well, it reads heavily like "Satoshi didn't intend this thing I don't like" as if that really matters. Satoshi probably had many views and opinions.
And why even include Satoshi at all if your intent wasn't to appeal to the authority?
Anyway, I appreciate the clarification and discussion.
