Probably only the illegal drug buyers / sellers think it's a good thing bitcoin is used to buy illegal drugs.
Maybe the focus should be on getting out of our comfy offices and catching illegal drug buyers / seller out there and not so much on Bitcoin. Or start focussing instead on the US dollar used by a much larger illegal industry internationally - if you want to deviate from the real problem and put blame on the medium of exchange (which can be any asset class or privilege perc).
Disclaimer: Postings of Cloud9 are only individual views of opinion. On a public forum you do not need permission from me to derive your own conclusion / opinion, so please do.
Agree, I'm surprised at how many junkies there are on the forum. Then again it used to be the same with anarchists/anti state activists etc.
Ad hominem attacks are certainly one way to shut down an argument, but not a very effective way. If you read the op's post, (s)he states that they have never tried any non-legal drug, yet thinks it invalid that government should legislate consumption of drugs. This is the position of John Mill, who was not a junky. This is the position of the government of Portugal, which I assume is not composed of junkies. This is the policy of Mexico, which is not a country of junkies. This is the libertarian (anarchist, anti-statist, minarchist, etc.) position. Attempting to sweep away the discussion by calling its participants "junkies" is an attempt to invalidate those who disagree with you by associating them with that emotionally-charged word.
Where this issue is relevant to bitcoin is that people are going to use an unregulated currency to trade in the black market. Whether you like the idea that that will happen or not is irrelevant. There is no way out of it. If you support a near-anonymous currency, the most you can do is distance yourself from those who use it for nefarious reasons. But if one allows the argument about the validity of bitcoin to be framed on the issue of its use on the black market, one will lose public support. It's inevitable that a non-state currency will attract libertarians who, in principle, don't believe that government should regulate drug consumption. It will also attract black marketeers who see a way to protect themselves when conducting trade.
It's an important discussion to have because those who oppose non-state currency such as bitcoin, and wish the government to clamp down on it, are going to seize on this issue (black market use) as a reason to clamp down. For those of us who support bitcoin, there isn't any point in getting dragged into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the black market. Getting involved in that discussion is a distraction, and that distraction is a tactic that is being used to try to undermine bitcoin. Reject the very argument that the validity of bitcoin has anything to do with its potential uses. The best response to this criticism of bitcoin is to accept that people are going to sell and buy non-legal drugs using bitcoin, realise that there is nothing we can do about it, and respond to critics that it is an inevitable consequence of this system, and that it is an acceptable consequence. The benefits of bitcoin outweigh these disadvantages. Afterall, state-sanctioned currency is used on the black market, and to a much, much greater extent than bitcoin will ever be used on the black market. Since use-on-the-black-market is not a reason to reject state-sanction currency, why should it be a reason to reject non-state-sanctioned currency? Allowing critics to inflate the disadvantages, or inflate people's perceptions of those disadvantages, is a good way to bring about the end of this medium.
Note that this issue is the very same which the government will use to clamp down on encryption. Encryption can be used by criminals/terrorists, therefore it must be stopped. Do you accept the premises of that argument?