I'm usually pretty careful not to call people names. Did I screw up?
I DO think there are lots of crazy conspiracy theories. I might even believe some of them myself, but that doesn't make me crazy (just "almost certainly wrong.").
RE: child exploitation: Good example. We all agree that child exploitation is BAD, right?
We might disagree about what (if anything) we should DO about it, but isn't it worth discussing whether or not there is something we MIGHT do about it? For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin.
Maybe that is a terrible idea that will have awful consequences, but instead of rational discussion there's a knee-jerk GOVERNMENT BAD! that, in my humble opinion, is counter-productive to making the world a better place.
I don't like people assuming that they know what I'm thinking, or assume that because I'm willing to talk to people that I agree with those people, or assume that because I'm pragmatic about regulation I "want regulation." For the record: I'm mostly libertarian, I think we'd be just fine if we replaced 99.911% of regulations with voluntary, private, market-based solutions. But that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
This logic is deeply flawed. Note, nobody is not telling you not to meet with people. But this stance of currying favour by being willing to sacrifice your sovereignty in exchange is fucking dangerous! It's the same story why in the UK for instance, we ended up the IWF (a fake charity and shadow organisation) who censors the internet - despite no laws or regulation existing. It was an organisation formed preemptively by ISPs worried about the threat of censorship... Well we can see how that's turned out; it's ended up being the foot in the door for control freaks and now the UK internet is basically unusable with default filters on every new internet connection that requires national ID to opt-out to a weaker blacklist.
You're willing to compromise on Bitcoin's fundamentals to help a few exchange businesses?! You can't trivialise regulation of cryptocurrency (possibly as fundamental as the internet) by comparing it to something meaningless. All this talk about placating to power is part of a deeper issue in Bitcoin. There's this dangerous attitude among the elite Bitcoin class that the anarchists invented this nice plaything but now it needs to be taken away from them and legitimised in order to become acceptable for everyone else. Note, this same attitude has played out with the internet. And anytime we didn't hold steadfast and resist, we lost our integrity forever.
Do you honestly believe giving the people in power "warm fuzzies" does anything but empower them? Do you see yourself as a keizer soze type figure moving in powerful circles undermining their standing from within? Or is the reality more that you're compromising on what Bitcoin stands for in the name of pragmatism.
Pragmatism is what people tell you when you try to do the right thing. It's an excuse to divert your attention from doing whats right because of fear. Fear of failure, fear of retribution, fear of whatever. "be pragmatic, be realistic", but in your heart you know that is only corruption speaking. It is through being "pragmatic" that we accept the situation as unchangeable and end up supporting a situation we don't support.
You are being used as a figurehead to represent the viewpoints and interests of others to push their agenda. By remaining silent on issues, and remaining in their circles, you are consenting to their actions.