... and I agree that it's about using your stake as you please, which is what we're currently doing with the bot.
Yep, I agree, totally. I just wonder if it passes the self-consistent test?
The system doesn't selfcorrect quite as well in this sense as many users would like to believe, even if it also isn't as bad as others think.
I think I can agree with this as well.
The self-consistency-test seems flawed to me.
Each party is, from a technical point of view, entitled to using the blockchain or any part thereof and for purposes he wants to only insofar as the blockchain itself - the total network output, from all it's active users with varying degrees of power - allows this.
That doesn't mean that any mechanism or action recorded on it is the most ethical one or that we all have to approve all actions taking place within the network. In fact the system was built so that users could disagree within it and also actively petition to change it, precisely because there was an understanding that individuals had to make the moral decissions and that the economics of the individuals making them would have to drive the developement of the network.
The blockchain itself is not private property of any one person, but merely influenced by many members of the social network surrounding it. This should be understood by all participators. So in order to work against the parts we disagree with, we use all means at our disposal that don't include physically harming the property of others while attempting to explain our reasoning.