[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 



[–] capitalistchemist [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Is this in reaction to the people even advocating to crowdfund the cost of extraditing the dentist that paid for Cecil's hunt?

It's what brought it back to mind this time, I've posted about the idea before though.

Anyways my first thought is, if it were provable someone helped to fund an action with the unquestionable intent to do violence, then there's no reason they should be treated any differently than the person they're paying to do violence (maybe even worse).

Hence why I'm against anonymous cryptocurrency.

I don't know what the solution would be, only that people would be more likely to crowdsource their own defense than to crowdsource an offensive measure.

It seems fairly implicit that attack is easier than defense. In the real world this balances as deterrence, but the key is the repeat nature of the game - retaliation is possible. By limiting the role of reputation the cost of attack falls quite a bit because retaliation becomes much harder.