Stablecoins must become legal tender as soon as possible

[accelafine]

Shows how much you know. Elon Musk is richer than ever. He's not what I would call a 'money' person. Money just seems to find HIM. I doubt if he obsesses over it, or wants to just accumulate it like a hoarder for the sake of big numbers. He's a strange, awkward person. Quite endearing. Not at all attractive to me, but certainly a lot more attractive than you are.

[godelian]

Shows how much you know. Elon Musk is richer than ever. He's not what I would call a 'money' person. Money just seems to find HIM. I doubt if he obsesses over it, or wants to just accumulate it like a hoarder for the sake of big numbers. He's a strange, awkward person. Quite endearing. Not at all attractive to me, but certainly a lot more attractive than you are.

Are you:

- young
- pretty
- of third-world origin?

No?

Now answer by yourself:

Does it matter whether you find me attractive or not?

In fact, in previous replies, you have pointed out by yourself that you actually know all this perfectly fine.

That is why I know that you don't have money, as you are incessantly trying to sell things to people that these people do not even want.

The customer asked for an Alaska King crab and you are trying to shove a Dublin Bay lobster down his throat.

So, you keep proving that you do not understand money, wealth, trade, commerce, and especially not, what men find attractive in women. So far, so good for the career, the family, the house in the suburbs, the white picket fence, and having it all.

[accelafine]

Shows how much you know. Elon Musk is richer than ever. He's not what I would call a 'money' person. Money just seems to find HIM. I doubt if he obsesses over it, or wants to just accumulate it like a hoarder for the sake of big numbers. He's a strange, awkward person. Quite endearing. Not at all attractive to me, but certainly a lot more attractive than you are.

Are you:

- young
- pretty
- of third-world origin?

No?

Now answer by yourself:

Does it matter whether you find me attractive or not?

In fact, in previous replies, you have pointed out by yourself that you actually know all this perfectly fine.

That is why I know that you don't have money, as you are incessantly trying to sell things to people that these people do not even want.

The customer asked for an Alaska King crab and you are trying to shove a Dublin Bay lobster down his throat.

So, you keep proving that you do not understand money, wealth, trade, commerce, and especially not, what men find attractive in women. So far, so good for the career, the family, the house in the suburbs, the white picket fence, and having it all.

It 'matters' as much as whether or not you find me attractive, moron--which is not at all. What are you going to do with your child-brides when they aren't 'young' any more, old man? My man still finds me irresistible. I bet those little girls live in dread of your monthly summons. No wonder they want to go shopping--it probably helps them to not vomit all day thinking about it.

[godelian]

My man still finds me irresistible.

You do not have a man. We all know that you do not. Just one rant out of your obnoxious big mouth -- like the current one -- would chase every single man away, no exceptions. So, your man has abandoned you a long time ago, and he never came back. You cannot keep a man. You are not an irresistible liar but an incorrigible one.

[accelafine]

My man still finds me irresistible.

You do not have a man. We all know that you do not. Just one rant out of your obnoxious big mouth -- like the current one -- would chase every single man away, no exceptions. So, your man has abandoned you a long time ago, and he never came back. You cannot keep a man. You are not an irresistible liar but an incorrigible one.

I suppose you would know Lusted after me for more than 26 years now. That's what happens when there is actual love. Age becomes irrelevant. He would make mincemeat of a cowardly little worm like you. Definitely not a 'money man'. A practical man who can fix stuff. That's much more useful.

[godelian]

He would make mincemeat of a cowardly little worm like you.

So, you would even want two men to fight and seek to kill each other because of your big obnoxious mouth?

That is definitely amongst the worst behaviors a female in our species can exhibit. You see, even a vulgar streetwalker is morally, vastly superior to you. You have the absolutely lowest social rank possible. None of my women would ever quarrel with a man and ask me to beat him up.

But then again, yes, tell that idiot of yours to come over. By the way, if he is willing to be with you, he clearly is an idiot. That is simply undeniable. He is even supposed to risk his life and die, just for your despicable big mouth.

By the way, if one of my women told me that she wants me to beat up a man that she quarreled with, I would even become suspicious. Why is she even spending so much time with him? Isn't she supposed to keep conversations with strange men short and transactional? Hence, it is again some extra evidence that this man only exists in your fantasy. You would certainly not ask him to meet me, because in that case, he would naturally become suspicious of you.

You have no man. Such man only exists in your fantasy!

[accelafine]

He would make mincemeat of a cowardly little worm like you.

So, you would even want two men to fight and seek to kill each other because of your big obnoxious mouth?

That is definitely amongst the worst behaviors a female in our species can exhibit. You see, even a vulgar streetwalker is morally, vastly superior to you. You have the absolutely lowest social rank possible. None of my women would ever quarrel with a man and ask me to beat him up.

But then again, yes, tell that idiot of yours to come over. By the way, if he is willing to be with you, he clearly is an idiot. That is simply undeniable. He is even supposed to risk his life and die, just for your despicable big mouth.

By the way, if one of my women told me that she wants me to beat up a man that she quarreled with, I would even become suspicious. Why is she even spending so much time with him? Isn't she supposed to keep conversations with strange men short and transactional? Hence, it is again some extra evidence that this man only exists in your fantasy. You would certainly not ask him to meet me, because in that case, he would naturally become suspicious of you.

You have no man. Such man only exists in your fantasy!

Who said anything about telling anyone to beat someone up? Do you think he's a trained monkey? Shows how much you know about actual relationships. The only one who lives in a fantasy world is you. Think about it. You: '' I'm extremely rich. Every country welcomes me. I have four underage, exquisitely beautiful prostitute 'wives' who cater to my every need, I'm handsome, I'm super fit, I'm a king, a god blah blah blah blah blah......' All sounds really plausible, especially considering your 'charming' online personality...

[godelian]

He would make mincemeat of a cowardly little worm like you.

Who said anything about telling anyone to beat someone up? Do you think he's a trained monkey?

Yes, exactly. That is indeed what you make him look like. But then again, this man does not exist. You do not have a man, because absolutely no man can stand your big obnoxious mouth.

You: '' I'm extremely rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual

In the financial services industry, a high-net-worth individual (HNWI) is a person who maintains liquid assets at or above a certain threshold. Typically the criterion is that the person's financial assets (excluding their primary residence) are valued over US$1 million.[1][2] A secondary level, a very-high-net-worth individual (VHNWI), is someone with a net worth of at least US$5 million.[1] The terminal level, an ultra-high-net-worth individual (UHNWI), holds US$30 million in investible assets (adjusted for inflation).[3][4] Individuals with a net worth of over US$1 billion are considered to occupy a special bracket of the UHNWI.

If absolutely nobody had financial assets over US$1 million, US$5 million, US$30 million, or US$1 billion, then the terminology/classification would be useless.

Every country welcomes me.

ChatGPT: Do countries offer long-term visas to people who are high-net-worth individuals?

Yes, absolutely — many countries have special visa or residency programs specifically designed to attract high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). These are often called things like "golden visas," "investor visas," or "economic citizenship" programs.

The basic idea is: if you invest a certain amount of money in the country (real estate, government bonds, business development, etc.), they’ll offer you a long-term visa, permanent residency, or even citizenship. Some examples:

Portugal: Golden Visa for real estate investment, fund investment, or business creation.
Spain: Golden Visa with real estate or government bonds investment.
Greece: Residency by buying real estate worth a certain amount.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): 10-year "Golden Visa" for investors, entrepreneurs, and specialized talents.
Singapore: Global Investor Program for people investing heavily in business or funds.
United States: EB-5 Visa for investing $800K+ (varies) in U.S. businesses.
Malta & Cyprus: Citizenship programs based on investment, though these have become stricter lately under EU pressure.

All sounds really plausible, especially considering your 'charming' online personality...

As I have pointed out to you already, you simply do not know any high-net-worth individuals. You have never interacted with one. I can perfectly tell.

But then again, you are not alone in that regard. The vast majority of people would not be able to detect that someone is a high-net-worth individual. They think that someone with a BMW or a Mercedes is wealthy, while the vast majority of people exhibiting such signs of wealth, are in fact the opposite of wealthy, because this is the kind of people who typically spend all their wealth on trying to appear wealthy. So, an expensive car is a tell-tale sign of negative net worth.

Nowadays, it is actually possible to prove one's control of spendable digital assets -- but it is not possible to prove the absence of liabilities that could wipe out net wealth -- by means of an interactive argument. But then again, you would undoubtedly not be able to verify such argument:

(1) The verifier provides the hash h(M) of an arbitrary message M to the prover.
(2) The prover signs h(M) and provides public key PUB along with signature (r,s) along with ADDR which is h2(PUB) along with blockchain B to the verifier.
(3) The verifier verifies that ADDR has unspent output C on blockchain B. This proves that the prover controls C number of coins on B.

We both know that you do not have the intellectual aptitude or intellectual capacity to perform the role of verifier in this proof protocol. So, it is not that proof is not possible. It is just that someone like you cannot deal with it.

In fact, what I described above is a simplified protocol that produces cryptographical proof of reserves:

ChatGPT: Cryptographical proof of reserves

"Cryptographical proof of reserves" is a method used by custodians like cryptocurrency exchanges to prove cryptographically that they actually hold enough assets to cover all customer balances. It’s about transparency and trust, especially after big collapses like FTX.

Here’s a simple breakdown:

1. What is it?
It's a public audit where an exchange or custodian proves they have the reserves they claim, without leaking sensitive user data or revealing exactly how much each user holds. It uses cryptographic techniques (like Merkle trees, zk-proofs, and digital signatures).

2. How does it work (conceptually)?
There are two main sides:
Liabilities = How much they owe customers (balances)
Assets = How much crypto they actually control (reserves)

The process usually involves:
Publishing a Merkle Tree of customer balances (liabilities)
→ Your balance is a leaf node.
→ You get a proof that your balance is included in the total without showing everyone else's.
Signing messages from their wallets to prove they control the funds (assets). → Like proving, "Hey, we actually own these Bitcoin addresses and their balances."
If the assets > liabilities, the exchange is solvent.

3. What cryptography is involved?
Merkle Trees: Efficient way to commit to large sets of data and prove inclusion with minimal info.
Digital Signatures: To prove control over crypto wallets.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) (emerging): To prove reserve sufficiency without revealing private customer data.

4. Problems / Limitations
Liability side manipulation: The exchange could hide liabilities or create fake accounts.
Assets can be borrowed temporarily to look solvent.
Need for real audits: Cryptographic proofs can’t replace legal accountability entirely.
Privacy: Early implementations leaked some sensitive information.

Example in practice:
After FTX collapsed, exchanges like Kraken, Binance, and BitMEX started publishing proof-of-reserves.
Kraken uses Merkle trees + an audit firm to verify reserves.

What is the typical hourly rate of auditors who work in the field of cryptographical proof of reserves?

Good question — it's a niche (but fast-growing) area, and the rates reflect that.

Here's what I can tell you:
Typical hourly rates for auditors specializing in cryptographic proof of reserves usually range between $200 and $600 USD per hour.
Top-tier firms (like specialized blockchain auditing firms, e.g., Trail of Bits, Halborn, Least Authority, OpenZeppelin, etc.) or prestigious financial auditors who have built cryptography teams (like Deloitte or KPMG Blockchain) can charge $500–$1,000+ per hour for senior cryptographers and partners.
Smaller, independent auditors who focus mainly on smart contracts, Merkle trees, and proof of liabilities/assets setups might charge around $150–$300 per hour, depending on reputation.

A few extra details:
Experience matters a lot: Someone with deep knowledge of Merkle tree implementation, zk-proofs, and smart contract security audits will command a higher rate than a generalist accountant who just "knows crypto."
Scope affects pricing: A simple Merkle tree + signature verification audit might be cheaper than a full
end-to-end zk-proof system with privacy-preserving audits.
Location also plays a role: US-based auditors are generally pricier than those in LATAM, Eastern Europe, or parts of Asia.

Rough breakdown:
Type of Auditor Typical Rate (USD/hr)
Solo Crypto Auditor (Mid-level) $150–$300
Specialized Blockchain Audit Firm (Senior) $300–$700
Big 4 Blockchain Specialist (Deloitte, PwC) $400–$1000+

Would you also like me to estimate what a full project cost might look like for a proof-of-reserves audit depending on size? (It usually isn’t hourly — often it’s project-based.)

We all know that you are not in the league of people who can charge an hourly rate between $150 and $1000+ for this kind of work. You undoubtedly do not even have the money to even hire someone to perform the role of verifier. I do not even need to do that, because I am the one who owns the coins.

Deloitte and KPMG bill $500–$1,000+ per hour for people who are capable of doing this kind of things. As I have already pointed out umpteen times, you do not understand money, wealth, trade, commerce, or anything related to these things at any serious level. What you call "plausible" is the uneducated opinion of an ignorant idiot. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

[accelafine]

He would make mincemeat of a cowardly little worm like you.

Who said anything about telling anyone to beat someone up? Do you think he's a trained monkey?

Yes, exactly. That is indeed what you make him look like. But then again, this man does not exist. You do not have a man, because absolutely no man can stand your big obnoxious mouth.

You: '' I'm extremely rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual

In the financial services industry, a high-net-worth individual (HNWI) is a person who maintains liquid assets at or above a certain threshold. Typically the criterion is that the person's financial assets (excluding their primary residence) are valued over US$1 million.[1][2] A secondary level, a very-high-net-worth individual (VHNWI), is someone with a net worth of at least US$5 million.[1] The terminal level, an ultra-high-net-worth individual (UHNWI), holds US$30 million in investible assets (adjusted for inflation).[3][4] Individuals with a net worth of over US$1 billion are considered to occupy a special bracket of the UHNWI.

If absolutely nobody had financial assets over US$1 million, US$5 million, US$30 million, or US$1 billion, then the terminology/classification would be useless.

Every country welcomes me.

ChatGPT: Do countries offer long-term visas to people who are high-net-worth individuals?

Yes, absolutely — many countries have special visa or residency programs specifically designed to attract high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). These are often called things like "golden visas," "investor visas," or "economic citizenship" programs.

The basic idea is: if you invest a certain amount of money in the country (real estate, government bonds, business development, etc.), they’ll offer you a long-term visa, permanent residency, or even citizenship. Some examples:

Portugal: Golden Visa for real estate investment, fund investment, or business creation.
Spain: Golden Visa with real estate or government bonds investment.
Greece: Residency by buying real estate worth a certain amount.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): 10-year "Golden Visa" for investors, entrepreneurs, and specialized talents.
Singapore: Global Investor Program for people investing heavily in business or funds.
United States: EB-5 Visa for investing $800K+ (varies) in U.S. businesses.
Malta & Cyprus: Citizenship programs based on investment, though these have become stricter lately under EU pressure.

All sounds really plausible, especially considering your 'charming' online personality...

As I have pointed out to you already, you simply do not know any high-net-worth individuals. You have never interacted with one. I can perfectly tell.

But then again, you are not alone in that regard. The vast majority of people would not be able to detect that someone is a high-net-worth individual. They think that someone with a BMW or a Mercedes is wealthy, while the vast majority of people exhibiting such signs of wealth, are in fact the opposite of wealthy, because this is the kind of people who typically spend all their wealth on trying to appear wealthy. So, an expensive car is a tell-tale sign of negative net worth.

Nowadays, it is actually possible to prove one's control of spendable digital assets -- but it is not possible to prove the absence of liabilities that could wipe out net wealth -- by means of an interactive argument. But then again, you would undoubtedly not be able to verify such argument:

(1) The verifier provides the hash h(M) of an arbitrary message M to the prover.
(2) The prover signs h(M) and provides public key PUB along with signature (r,s) along with ADDR which is h2(PUB) along with blockchain B to the verifier.
(3) The verifier verifies that ADDR has unspent output C on blockchain B. This proves that the prover controls C number of coins on B.

We both know that you do not have the intellectual aptitude or intellectual capacity to perform the role of verifier in this proof protocol. So, it is not that proof is not possible. It is just that someone like you cannot deal with it.

In fact, what I described above is a simplified protocol that produces cryptographical proof of reserves:

ChatGPT: Cryptographical proof of reserves

"Cryptographical proof of reserves" is a method used by custodians like cryptocurrency exchanges to prove cryptographically that they actually hold enough assets to cover all customer balances. It’s about transparency and trust, especially after big collapses like FTX.

Here’s a simple breakdown:

1. What is it?
It's a public audit where an exchange or custodian proves they have the reserves they claim, without leaking sensitive user data or revealing exactly how much each user holds. It uses cryptographic techniques (like Merkle trees, zk-proofs, and digital signatures).

2. How does it work (conceptually)?
There are two main sides:
Liabilities = How much they owe customers (balances)
Assets = How much crypto they actually control (reserves)

The process usually involves:
Publishing a Merkle Tree of customer balances (liabilities)
→ Your balance is a leaf node.
→ You get a proof that your balance is included in the total without showing everyone else's.
Signing messages from their wallets to prove they control the funds (assets). → Like proving, "Hey, we actually own these Bitcoin addresses and their balances."
If the assets > liabilities, the exchange is solvent.

3. What cryptography is involved?
Merkle Trees: Efficient way to commit to large sets of data and prove inclusion with minimal info.
Digital Signatures: To prove control over crypto wallets.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) (emerging): To prove reserve sufficiency without revealing private customer data.

4. Problems / Limitations
Liability side manipulation: The exchange could hide liabilities or create fake accounts.
Assets can be borrowed temporarily to look solvent.
Need for real audits: Cryptographic proofs can’t replace legal accountability entirely.
Privacy: Early implementations leaked some sensitive information.

Example in practice:
After FTX collapsed, exchanges like Kraken, Binance, and BitMEX started publishing proof-of-reserves.
Kraken uses Merkle trees + an audit firm to verify reserves.

What is the typical hourly rate of auditors who work in the field of cryptographical proof of reserves?

Good question — it's a niche (but fast-growing) area, and the rates reflect that.

Here's what I can tell you:
Typical hourly rates for auditors specializing in cryptographic proof of reserves usually range between $200 and $600 USD per hour.
Top-tier firms (like specialized blockchain auditing firms, e.g., Trail of Bits, Halborn, Least Authority, OpenZeppelin, etc.) or prestigious financial auditors who have built cryptography teams (like Deloitte or KPMG Blockchain) can charge $500–$1,000+ per hour for senior cryptographers and partners.
Smaller, independent auditors who focus mainly on smart contracts, Merkle trees, and proof of liabilities/assets setups might charge around $150–$300 per hour, depending on reputation.

A few extra details:
Experience matters a lot: Someone with deep knowledge of Merkle tree implementation, zk-proofs, and smart contract security audits will command a higher rate than a generalist accountant who just "knows crypto."
Scope affects pricing: A simple Merkle tree + signature verification audit might be cheaper than a full
end-to-end zk-proof system with privacy-preserving audits.
Location also plays a role: US-based auditors are generally pricier than those in LATAM, Eastern Europe, or parts of Asia.

Rough breakdown:
Type of Auditor Typical Rate (USD/hr)
Solo Crypto Auditor (Mid-level) $150–$300
Specialized Blockchain Audit Firm (Senior) $300–$700
Big 4 Blockchain Specialist (Deloitte, PwC) $400–$1000+

Would you also like me to estimate what a full project cost might look like for a proof-of-reserves audit depending on size? (It usually isn’t hourly — often it’s project-based.)

We all know that you are not in the league of people who can charge an hourly rate between $150 and $1000+ for this kind of work. You undoubtedly do not even have the money to even hire someone to perform the role of verifier. I do not even need to do that, because I am the one who owns the coins.

Deloitte and KPMG bill $500–$1,000+ per hour for people who are capable of doing this kind of things. As I have already pointed out umpteen times, you do not understand money, wealth, trade, commerce, or anything related to these things at any serious level. What you call "plausible" is the uneducated opinion of an ignorant idiot. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

blah blah money money blah money net worth money blah blah...whatever you say dear. I LITERALLY read all of that and took notes. Truly. Really. Literally

[godelian]

blah blah money money blah money net worth money blah blah...whatever you say dear. I LITERALLY read all of that and took notes. Truly. Really. Literally

You want to bring everything back to gender conflict.

Sex and money are, however, very intertwined in gender dynamics.

In fact, if money hadn't become so incredibly mathematical, I would also be less interested.

For the purpose of philosophizing, I need very pure mathematics and its resulting philosophy. Cryptocurrencies have turned money into a highly philosophical.subject.

It is the purity of reasoning, that attracts me, about an abstract Platonic universe in which gender does not even exist.

[Gary Childress]

The only useful societal function of the banks is to keep track of people's account balances.

The banks were supposed to make sure that the payer's account balance gets reduced by the payment amount while the payee's account balance gets increased accordingly.

We now have numerous public blockchains doing that safer, faster, and cheaper.

You can happily transfer US dollar tokens on the Tron, Solana, Liquid, Ethereum, Polygon, Algorand and other public blockchains.

The bank's accounting services are now obsolete. The banks no longer have societal value.

A revolt against the moneylenders is therefore in order, similar to:

- The Ciompi revolt (1378), Florence, Italy
- The Taiping revolt (1850), China

Some people will argue against violence. However, violence is not always the problem. On the contrary, violence is quite often the solution to the problem.

Historically, the killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination of the moneylenders has typically had beneficial societal effects.

"Killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination" are unethical. Why are you preaching things like that? You seem to be driven by hate. Are you living with abject suffering caused by others (more so than any of the rest of us are)? I mean, many of us might wish we were millionaires. However, very few would go out and murder a bunch of other people who are standing in the way in order to accomplish the task. What gives?

[godelian]

"Killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination" are unethical. Why are you preaching things like that? You seem to be driven by hate. Are you living with abject suffering caused by others (more so than any of the rest of us are)? I mean, many of us might wish we were millionaires. However, very few would go out and murder a bunch of other people who are standing in the way in order to accomplish the task. What gives?

History is replete with massive outburst of violence, sometimes even surprisingly cruel ones.

One possible way to look at it, is to declare that "all violence is bad". There is something incredibly naive about that view. Biology is replete with violence. It is almost surely a necessary ingredient for life to survive.

In that sense, it is obvious that most violence is beneficial. Most violence is not unethical. Once I came to understand this reality, I began to admire the phenomenon.

I wasn't trained to efficiently kill lots of people or even lots of animals. Few people are. However, it certainly makes sense to study the process, the methods, the associated dollar cost or energy cost, and so on. It is just a subject like any other, really.

[Gary Childress]

"Killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination" are unethical. Why are you preaching things like that? You seem to be driven by hate. Are you living with abject suffering caused by others (more so than any of the rest of us are)? I mean, many of us might wish we were millionaires. However, very few would go out and murder a bunch of other people who are standing in the way in order to accomplish the task. What gives?

History is replete with massive outburst of violence, sometimes even surprisingly cruel ones.

One possible way to look at it, is to declare that "all violence is bad". There is something incredibly naive about that view. Biology is replete with violence. It is almost surely a necessary ingredient for life to survive.

In that sense, it is obvious that most violence is beneficial. Most violence is not unethical. Once I came to understand this reality, I began to admire the phenomenon.

I wasn't trained to efficiently kill lots of people or even lots of animals. Few people are. However, it certainly makes sense to study the process, the methods, the associated dollar cost or energy cost, and so on. It is just a subject like any other, really.

There are forms of violence that are an unfortunate necessity of life, however, "maiming, raping, plundering, eradicating and wholesale extermination" are not among them. They are the instincts of malice. And those instincts are what drive injustices in the world. The world is not always a good place, but it seems best to avoid making it worse. Wouldn't you agree?

[Impenitent]

Stable coins should not be used like horse feathers

-Imp

[godelian]

There are forms of violence that are an unfortunate necessity of life, however, "maiming, raping, plundering, eradicating and wholesale extermination" are not among them. They are the instincts of malice. And those instincts are what drive injustices in the world. The world is not always a good place, but it seems best to avoid making it worse. Wouldn't you agree?

Violence can also make the world a better place.

Say that you want to stop violence. The only realistic instrument to that effect may be to use violence against the ones who are violent. Consequently, this retaliatory violence is not the problem. On the contrary, it is the solution to the problem.

Concerning "maiming, raping, plundering, eradicating and wholesale extermination", the basic principle remains "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". So, again, in order to stop it, the only solution may very well be to do it too.

Sometimes there are indeed alternative solutions. Typically, you may accept financial compensation from the adversary in lieu of inflicting reprisals in kind. That is why it is important to leave all options on the table, including negotiations.

I actually do accept arguments that necessarily follow from a sound and deductively-closed moral theory. However, that always excludes Christian doctrine and its fake pacifism.