Ok, but the following things you've said are false:



The Times article does not mention drugs once. Neither of the two articles "point at the drug stuff on bitcoin's 'official sites'". I have not seen an article that paints the availability of drugs in exchange for Bitcoin (which will not change by removing it from the wiki) in a bad light. Which articles in particular are you referring to?


Love the ad hominems. It's completely rational to believe that a decentralized, pseudonymous electronic currency will be a useful tool in the fight against statism. One does not need to be a teenager to hold this view. Are you really that closed minded?

Clearly not what I said. I'm all for considering arguments for and against. Just don't start with a pretty statement about concern for morality and principles, then immediately follow with an argument from effect. If your argument is from effect, fair enough. Just admit that it has no moral or principled grounding.

This is so boring, and it comes up again and again.

Wake me up when someone's got an argument for why it's morally wrong to point at drugs, or a consistent argument from principle as to why we should censor ourselves.

Well I think the issue here is your post is self-contradictory.  It's like saying:

"We all know that a civilized society doesn't resort to capital punishment, but the dude killed a busload of blind nuns!"

If you think the dude deserves to be executed in this case, you're not against capital punishment.

Anyway, I personally think it's clear that with a world-wide community, it's impossible to reach a consensus on what's even illegal, let alone ethical, which makes it near impossible to draw a line in the sand over drugs.

I also think it's a bit premature to do so based over some imaginary Joe Everyman.  Many of the arguments are that, "well us free-thinking libertarians don't have a problem with this, but obviously Joe Sixpack will."  I think basing policy on an imaginary adversary to BitCoin's acceptance is a bit strange.  Perhaps if there was evidence that this actually was hindering acceptance it'd be a different story.

And I could care less what people choose to do with their bodies (or their finances).

But I do care about making sure that bitcoin avoids becoming something that merchants want to avoid.

If bitcoin is only accepted by gambling and drug sites, then it will not become the revolutionary currency that frees people from their government fiat currency shackles.

There is a time and a place for everything, and that time is [college | Tor].

It saddens me how much the community is gripped by paranoia. This paranoia that plagues the community has created illogical reasoning in the best of you.

How sad is it when our business model is
"Drug and Gambling Industries only" rather then "Corporate culture all over the world + Drug and Gambling Industries"
You reasoning is that your belief in Bit Coins is so grandeur that the US would somehow destroy or make it illegal
I'm not even gonna say how idiotic for someone to believe that laws and congress would pass the criminalization of a currency because it is "used by drug dealers"
How stupid would it be just to make the US and Western allies use USD while the rest of the world with emerging economies flourish with Bit Coins
The US would never adopt such a policy its obvious to anyone

Do you guys think a good advertisement for a company would be:
PRODUCT A THE BEST AND ONLY BUSINESS IS WITH DRUGS AND GAMBLING, BUY NOW!!!

These satire points i could fully explain in detail if anyone wishes  to know.
But i think you guys understand the point.
It seems like many of the community members are looking at this not from a business prospective, corporate or even investor prospective.
Even though-we, the early adopters are suppose to be a pioneer in something big.
It seems much of our collective decision is not going to be based on business or reason but just paranoia and personal prejudice.

hey, i have a great idea:

why not let bitcoin.org and the 'official wiki' be 'squeaky clean', and just set up a third-party site with uncensored forum/wiki separately.

that way we can both keep the main project away from any unnecessary controversy, and have uncensored discussion/merchant listings.

i bet 'bitcoinwiki.to' and 'bitcoinforum.to' (choose any hard-for-govt-to-seize tld) are available.

-11

Sounds like a terrible idea, indeed...

Lets see you define squeaky clean. Should we get rid of everything that has a law against it somewhere in the world? That wouldn't leave us with much. Or just American laws? Or British laws?

If there are people exchanging good and services voluntarily, and not harming anyone in the process. Why can't you just leave them alone? Seriously.

I think drugs and gambling are very important things to Bitcoin economy. We should support it but I don't think we have to do it officially.

Aren't we missing a few things?

1. Some things are inherently immoral, like eating humans, having sexual intercourse with a sibling/parent, and using drugs.

2. I never understood why libertarians, who think "liberty", whatever that means, is some sort of ultimate moral principle, support the manipulation of people into surrendering their liberty and free will to drug addiction (or, in the case of hallucinogenics, to a state of detachment from reality).

3. Using drugs is not a victimless crime. This is especially pronounced with cigarettes - Some people think they have the right to smoke wherever they want and subject their surroundings to noxious, foul-smelling gases. Even laws restricting places allowed for smoking have so far proven ineffective against this. At one time I had the displeasure to work with someone who smoked marijuana, when he came back from a smoking session he smelled so bad my eyes watered. What about my liberty to enjoy clean air?

So, for these reasons, as well as the obvious negative consequences for the success of Bitcoin, drug dealers should not be advertised in any official site.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.