Bobr

It’s not just FULL-SCALE, it is also ILLEGAL!

Lol, it’s not even a spicy question like “Why is Zelensky posting photos with soldiers with Nazi symbols if his regime being Nazis is Russin propaganda?”, and you still got those “people” triggered XD

A job well done!

Both absolutely should be allowed/legalized.

I mean, the same people praise Azov, so no surprises there

Removed by mod

Do you mean that the Ukrainian people are getting

assaulted, kidnapped

On the territories still controlled by Zelensky’s regime - yes, kidnapping and assault (busification) is daily occurence indeed.

murdered

Well, this is the point of busification, to send the people to die, so also yes.

Thankfully, Russia is slowly but steadily liberating people from that.

I am in a superposition of being a tankie and not being a tankie at the same time.

Tankies consider me a lib because I dislike DPRK.

Libs consider me a tankie because I dislike “the west”.

Oh well

No. From the most base concepts, some authority still needs to recognize and enforce the contents of the blockchain (ownership, currency, whatever).

What authority is needed when blockchain is used as a currency, what is there to enforce?

But that means it will only ever be relegated to buying drugs on the internet and scams.

You can buy much more than drugs using cryptocurrency, so this is absolutely false.

So, I haven’t read much about it, but right on the page you’ve linked it shows banks on a diagram explaining how it works. If banks are involved, it is not permisionless - banks can block and censor transactions, they can refuse to open an account for you at all, etc.

What are the alternatives?
How else can you create decentralized permissionless money (you know, the thing it was created for in the first place, before people got an idea of putting monkey jpegs there)?

A completely unmoderated instance […]

OP doesn’t ask for “unmoderated” instance though, they are explicitly asking for an instance that “takes moderation seriously”. Moderation is absolutely not the same thing as censorship.

Yes.

Thanks for telling me what I just said in my comment people already told me a million times, I guess? 🤷‍♂

Yeah yeah, “if we don’t kill you then Russia will”. Heard that one too many times from the good guys as well :)

Yet nobody was able to show me how people were wiped out in the liberated territories (Crimea, Melitopol, etc.), how millions of us living in Russia were wiped out, etc.

Again, you don’t get to make a surprised pikachu face when you are literally telling people whom you are trying to kill that they are Russian bots.

How can anyone in good faith support Zelensky, the bloodthirsty tyrant who turned my country into the biggest prison in the world where people are kidnapped off the streets, beaten, forced into vans and then sent to die in a meatgronder?

That’s a rhetorical question of course, I’ve heard the answer[s] so many times already, basically some version of “it’s a war so anything Zelensky does is absolutely normal/justifiable and it’s OK if you, your family and basically everyone you know dies, no big deal. No human rights apply to you, now please go and die fighting for my geopolitical interests”.

But you cannot make a surprised pikachu face after that and be shocked that people actually support the evil-evil Russia, which liberates people from the regime you support.

Removed by mod

Well, you raise a valid point, it’s also bad of course.
It’s just that “forcing you to do a thing (a physical labor) you do not want to do” and “forcing you to give up a part of your salary” are different things.

Or is it just being forced to directly do morally abhorrent things?

Not just “morally abhorrent things”, any forced labor is wrong.

I don’t think I am “arguing semantics” (whatever that means), and you evaded the question :(

In the event of a real defensive war, where your nation is invaded with the intent of conquest or subjugation, you will not have a lack of volunteers. You will have a lack of trained people.

Hey, I have a (purely theoretical!) question if you don’t mind.

So, if there was (theoretically of course) a war out there, where the government openly admits that they lack volunteers, people are trying to escape the country en masse by illegally crossing the border, and also there were thousands of videos online about that government kidnapping people off the streets (so that they have at least someone to send into the war), would it mean by your definition that such a war is not “with the intent of conquest or subjugation”?