This is my response to the clown himself.

Very similar to emotionally healthy adults teaching children not to bully (were you bullied?).

Not coding kindness doesn't preclude kindness.

I can't refer to you as an adult of course - you think logic is subjective.....can't stop laughing at that one..sorry..

You think that's what I think, big difference between what you think I think and what you know I think and what I actually think.

Nothing is unethical about it it has been donated freely

So then it's completely irrelevant. Not only that, it's not been donated, because as I've explained to you, it's was never the witnesses. You seem to think that because the witnesses validate blocks, they own the blocks. No one owns the blockchain. No one owns the reward pool.

yup. agreed.

Code much like any object is not an act.

The creation of the code is an act.
This is only an ethical issue if the writer of the code had a moral problem with writing the code.

Nope, it's irrelevant if the creator of the gun intended to use it to murder people or to protect people with it from aggressors. You fail to see that a thing by itself, regardless of what it was intended for, is not ethical or unethical. It's only what people use/intend for to use it when ethics/morals come into play.

You speak in vagueness: what moral problem? What ethical issue? Your statement makes no sense, no heads or tails to be made. So what is the relevance of it?

Writing is not intent, ffs - how old are you?
Writing is an act -Intent is a thought., ffs.
I have no confusion.

Did I say otherwise you clown? Nope, so stop trying to conflate. I said that you confuse what is Written with Writing. You see, what is written even though it's got an author is only AFTER THE FACT. The act of writing is when and where you can point to the author, that's why you refer to vague Code as unethical, not to who wrote it, why they wrote it and how it's written (so as to be unethical). It's specifics, who/when/where/what/why/how. Not only What.

Meritocracy relies on free markets. Free markets rely on property rights.

Meritocracy is based on merits/ability. That is why fairness is at the crux of it. Meritocracy is not based on property rights or free markets, do I need to hit you over your clown head with the explanation of meritocracy and how fairness /equity is at the heart of rewards based on merits? Open up a dictionary and let's see you argue that meritocracy is based on free markets or property rights as you claim.

It is not a free market! and free markets have nothing to do with equity... conflate conflate, conflate .
You are sounding like 5 year old, more and more...

If it's not free market then what is it clown? You refuse to define it, only to negatively define it. What is it?

Classic!!! You out did yourself on this one - and that takes some doing.
Did you decide not engage both your brain cells at once??

You are equating logic to fairness!
LOGIC is....... OBECTIVE
FAIRNESS is .......SUBJECTIVE.

logic PIVOTS ON the subjective???....

2+2 = nice shade of orange?... that kind of logic, yeah?

Nope, I'm not equating fairness to logic. I pointed out that your argument about the largest stakeholders have the largest share of the reward pool titillates on Fairness/Equity.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity

Equity holders enjoy voting rights and other privileges that only come with ownership, because equity represents a claim on a proportionate share of a company's assets and earnings.

People have the power over things - like writing code for example.

You think that code has power over people. You want to hardcode ethics. Nuff said. If you didn't think that code had power over people, you wouldn't have resorted to such authoritarian position. Code does not have power over people. People have power over code. Writing code gives people power over code, the product does not have power over people.

You really are little deranged, matey.
Your love of communism isn't my fault.
Property rights encourage ethical behavior

Yes, every fisherman owns their boat and equipment. Nobody owning the ocean does not encourage them to pillage or murder one another. You call me communist because you don't have an argument and think that insinuating that "nobody owns the reward pool" is an ethical argument or the basis for one. It's not, it's completely irrelevant.

You are losing it...People own things, not oceans you dimwit.
Ethical behavior only applies to people, not oceans - you dimwit.

Without property rights there are no ethics. durrr.

What is your point? Did I say that people own the ocean? You use the analogy of nobody owns the ocean like a clown, as if you can't grasp that because nobody owns the reward pool, and no one owns the blockchain, that this encourages people to be unethical.

You still have not pointed out EXACTLY who is to blame for the so called ethical issue and you haven't explained what the ethical issue is.

All you did was repeat that "no property rights encourages unethical behavior" failing to see that if no property rights are violated and everyone consents there is no such thing as unethical behavior and there cannot be, after all, without property rights how can there be a victim or victimizer?

You're so lost in the sauce it's really sad.

You also think that you have any grasp on logic, and fancy yourself as some kind of rebel speaking against TPTB. You also have no indication of sanity, despite the claim to the contrary. Insanity: repeating the same thing and expecting different results.

Posted using Partiko Android