blah blah blah
blah blah blah
EDIT:
What makes you guys think Doge coin is even legal ?
Just because Jamie Dimon showed willingness to use government force to stop people from using cryptocurrencies, doesn't mean that they are illegal. (It's circular reasoning - "My buddies in government can stop you from using it, so therefore it is illegal")
At the core of it, the issue is competition. There are powerful entities that have overseen banking for a long time. It is natural for laws to have evolved around the preservation of such established enterprise.
So therefore, I think it is important to approach this question from a perspective of common sense, rather than any set of legal documents produced by a state in order to protect its power.
Is the development and use of crypto damaging to any of the parties involved? Is it immoral or unethical, counterproductive, or in some way wrong in the sense of international law?
That depends on how it is used - if someone deceives other people regarding the work being done on a new crypto and their future plans for it in order to sell their share and disappear, then that is wrong and despicable, but it has far less to do with crypto than it does with the actual individual perpetuating such behavior. Do you not think this doesn't happen every day on a regular basis in established finance? Or even general retail? Similarly, if an organization takes in customer deposits and then doesn't return them when a withdrawal is requested, is the core problem with crypto or with the organization?
Law abiding and moral people should not have to endure virulently antagonistic rhetoric simply for showing an interest in crypto or for asking an objective question, just because of the behavior of others in this environment.
What I'm really disgusted with, though, is how readily some people are willing to sell out the Englightenment ideals and their communities and go back to sucking the Goldman Sachs dong at a moment's notice. Shame on you.