Topic: 2013-08-14 Forbes: Dread Pirate Roberts, the Man Behind the Silk Road (Read 2908 times)

Are you pulling a joke, or are you a complete asshole?

Honestly, the internet is full of fucking idiots.

Just a hint...

He's an Aussie

Well this discussion seems to have taken quite the turn! This seems more appropriate for an SR forum or maybe a drug forum, but probably not a bitcoin forum.

I meant khat as a mild drug and that ketamine and amphetamine as in-between, but possibly on the softer rather than the harder side. I know that khat, caffeine and amphetamine are stimulants and that ketamine is a dissosiative.

The reason ketamine is not wildly used as a tranquillizer for humans anymore is that some people would report bad trips. What happens is that your consciousness is disassociated with your senses more and more depending on your dose. For most people that's perfectly fine, but if you have some serious issues buried deep down, you could potentially revisit them while being operated on in hospital, and wake up traumatized. However, for most people it is a pleasant experience to dissociate oneself from one's senses. Things will become distant, strange, and as you say, not real.

From a philosophical, if not practical, standpoint however, reality is not real. Just a perception of ones senses and hence not an "objective reality" like many of us are taught and like to believe.

But hopefully, in the future, one will not have to be stigmatised from going out of control with drug use and can easily seek help if things get out of hand. Though many people who use a large amount of different drugs keep their use within control. As far as I understand however, opiates are the hardest to quit.

This chart from The Lancet is a very simplified overview over harm and dependence of some drugs. Though I'm thinking culture has a lot more to do with it than this chart makes it seem:

You don't have to have faith in me.

What is ketamine's medicinal purpose? It's a tranquilizer. You cannot argue with that. Do veterinarians give it to horses to make them trip? Or do they do it to immobilize them and stop pain?

I have a great deal more faith in my experiences of the typical ketamine user than I have of someone trying to convince me of theirs, but we'll leave it at that

Never trust a pirate.   

I have direct experience with oxycodone (percs), heroin, acid, shrooms, and ketamine and I can say that ketamine is more similar to an opiate than psychedelic. And someone who "communicat[es] telepathically with different realms" is just high out of their mind. I'm sure that a lot of drugs would do the same thing to them.

Mind you, recreational users probably don't use it as a painkiller, but that's what it is. It's a sedative and a painkiller.

Take some time with some ket-heads, then tell me the same. I have direct experience of these people, it is not used as any form of painkiller by those that use it, they spend most of their time talking about how big (or small) the world suddenly appears, or how they've been communicating telepathically with different realms, or how they're no longer convinced that reality is "real".

Ketamine is an animal tranquilizer. It's a painkiller as well. It's more similar to morphine or other opiates than acid, shrooms or other psychedelics.

I do have some sympathy for the "free market sorts it through" perspective, but in the case of drugs like crack, it's more akin to survival of the fittest. It's pretty much one way ticket to a very quick death, and I mean the direct medical effects, not anything cultural or circumstantial. Can you avoid the temptation? If not, then early death and heartache it is. It's more like solvent abuse IMO, and I doubt that's a Silk Road category.

As an aside, I think you may have the wrong idea about both khat and ketamine: khat is a natural amphetamine style stimulant that's popular with Somalis (where the khat plant is indigenous), whereas ketamine is more appropriately grouped with your psychedelics (it is often referred to as a "dissociative", whatever that may entail).

SR never sold firearms. It was an entirely different site called the Armory (although they may have been run by the same person?).

Also, I'm guessing the majority of money comes from hard drugs simply because they're more expensive. Grams of cocaine are 100+ and grams of heroin are 200+ and that's much less doses than if people spent that money on weed or psychedelics.

Well it says in the article that they did sell guns for a while, I was just commenting on how the article portrayed DPR and SR. The article also talks about the flood gates, but not as much of flood gates of illicit goods necessarily but as a means to circumvent the state and taxation, as well as hard-to-comply regulation.

I agree that crack cocaine is a pretty ridiculous drug. But in a free marketplace people would quickly realise that and just try out one of the myriad of "better" drugs instead. As far as I understand crack cocaine is something that you can earn money by selling if you first push it to consumer, get them addicted, and then sell more to them. But with SR, if you get some poor sod hooked to the stuff, they would just buy it from some of the other dealers on SR and you wouldn't profit.

Regardless it would be really interesting to see how much of SRs turnover is weed/psychedelics/empathogens/khat as well as other milder drugs (and maybe also things like Amphetamine and Ketamine). As opposed to what proportion of the turnover is in the heavier, more addictive substances like tobacco, heroin, alcohol and cocaine and crack-cocaine.

I like how Forbes makes a big deal about how they communicated with him, despite the fact that literally anyone with a computer could go on the SR forums and talk to him.

SR also sells crack cocaine and heroin, and previously did sell firearms and weapons, so the "no guns yet" statement is spectacularly ill informed. So the idea that Silk Road can be looked at as totally benign is pretty ridiculous, there's an argument that they opened the floodgates for Tor based illicit marketplaces of all descriptions. I would defend the rights of people wishing to experiment with many illegal drugs, and also to regularly consume some of them. But crack cocaine would still be harmful even if it were legal, guaranteed pure and free from gang violence and social stigma, and with no benefits for the user, other than to get stupifyingly exhilarated.

Not guilty, I'm afraid. They've demonstrated a fair amount of ignorance for the most part, but at least they've been improving. They'd get an aggregated C+ grade from me. Mostly bolstered by Jon Matonis' pretty much impeccable coverage.

quoting, this is even more informative than the article

For those of you suspecting Forbes for having evil intentions about this, I have another take.

Through the work of journalists like Greenberg and Hill, Forbes is carving out a nice little niche for themselves. They are not simply copying the eternally copied stories but making their own original and well-informed articles. I think they are doing this to make money, they are positioning themselves to know as much as possible about Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin really takes off and reduces traditional finance, then Forbes will be set to be able to continue. Maybe they actually are forward-thinking and want to start covering the winning team, rather than only focussing on the sinking ship.

Also, why is it so negative for Bitcoin to be associated with SR? This article is very well balanced and in fact it seems to me unbiased, unlike most of the other articles out there. Besides, more and more people are starting to think the war on drugs should end, even two US states have legalised cannabis. Then you have Portugal, Urugay and the Netherlands. For a growing number of people this is puts Bitcoin in a positive light. Like the part about no guns yet makes SR look good.

They can try 

Forbes goes back to the 1900 teens employed by William Randolph Hearst. He was a financial columnist at the time the Money Trust (bankers) and foundations bought up all the major newspapers. He was put there by Hearst - I believe - at the behest of the financial interests that got the Federal Reserve and Revenue Acts of 1913 enacted to give positive light to the new legislation. I believe this because in 1933 Hearst was defaulting on a loan... and the bankers extended it instead of forclosing like they did with everyone else who could not pay up. One of the biggest property, business and land grabs in all of human history, and the bankers were relentless and non-caring about it to, and the banks just let him go so he would not lose his land held in collateral. Bullshit. He was repaid a debt for a lot of work conditioning the public for decades.

Hearst and Forbes were also both heavily involved in investment banking and politics.

Make no mistake about it... Forbes relies on the traditional financial/economic systems for their quality of life, wealth and power. Bitcoin represents the end of all of that. They are scared and this is a blow on the battlefield.

It's a hit-piece to associate drugs/terrorism to Bitcoin...

Here's What It's Like To Buy Drugs On Three Anonymous Online Black Markets

Bitcoin gets the FBI, Homeland treatment

Bitcoin Investigation: Is this the end of virtual currency?

They want to tax it and control it.

Congress is talking about it right now.