Bad actors use effective technologies, just like good ones do. So what?

So this means that Tor taking money from Zcash is an explicit endorsement of the crypto token space and the scams and speculation and environmental destruction they harbour.

Not to mention the ransomware enablement of a so called privacy token.

I don't think Tor would want to be associated with all of that on top of all the other illicit activities they are already associated with.

So when did you stop using Amazon? Or Apple? Or Visa? Because of the gift card scams. Or the usd? Almost all crime is paid for in usd.

Your argument is less than merited because there is no moral contrast with alternatives. Guilt by association is fallacious. That leaves only "because you don't like it" and that's a valid opinion, which you're welcome to, but having privacy enabling technology allows real world freedom. Others of us have the opinion that despite bad people existing, supporting the freedom and anonymity of people, good or bad, is an improvement to the world.

Your whataboutism is missing the core point.

These privacy tokens enable ransomware, full stop. Taking money from them enables them to exist and to allow criminals to continue using Zcash, Monero, etc and effects are huge. They are not even regulated and this needs to stop.

Even if I were to use these crypto tokens, the price would fall over drastically upon receiving them. No notable improvement or use at all than receiving a donation or grant via card payment straight into my bank account. No scams or price drops at all there.

> Others of us have the opinion that despite bad people existing, supporting the freedom and anonymity of people, good or bad, is an improvement to the world.

There is nothing wrong with having privacy enabling technology, I didn't argue this at all so I am calling strawman on this.

What I do not want is for the Tor foundation endorse or accept money from a project that environmentally destructive and only benefits speculation, scams and doesn't work as a currency at all.

Taking a donor's money is at most an implicit endorsement. If an active serial killer gave me a million dollars to make the world a better place, it would be wrong for me to refuse to move money from a bad actor to those in need.

Great strawman but I still disagree and it is not what is happening here, it is still an endorsement of crypto scams, and in the case for crypto, this only amplifies the adoption of ransomware, scams and sure bad actors because of the donation. It just makes it all worse.

I don't understand how what I said is a strawman. I think an active serial killer is orders of magnitude worse than any crypto scam, but I would still take their money- ie. I'm disagreeing with a stronger version of your point.