Topic: assassination market -- legitimate tit-for-tat as per the N.A.P., or coercion? (Read 2707 times)

the most sophomoric idea ever

Easy, just PM the people you see on the site or use a private chat needs to be encrypted of course.

I... don't even... what. How do you suppose that might work, exactly?

What is "this"? This debate? It is, that's why we're having it here, in this subforum. The concept of a crypto-funded death note itself? That's what's being debated. Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking.

 
Well, as we always say, Bitcoin is only as anonymous as the user makes it. Yeah, I could see someone making a really stupid choice that wasn't anonymous at all. I also have concerns that a stolen wallet traceable to an individual could be used as a setup. How's that for a way to get rid of the boss you hate who's always blathering about how rich Bitcoin made him? Access his wallet and fund the presidential hit order?

I'll tell you why it won't catch on, someone could place a bounty on the site for the site operator and then pay a bonus if they kill any extra staff and they wouldn't be able to run the site anymore after a simple DDOS attack. It would admittedly be pretty easy to pay somebody for an assassination in Bitcoin just because of how easy it is to stay anonymous, don't know why this site operator thinks they're clever by putting it up.

People in this forum disagree all day long about how to have a better society and more effective politics.

An assassination market doesn't fit into anyone's idea of a better society.

I cannot believe that anyone would send bitcoins (thus implicating themselves in a crime) to have someone assassinated. Remember, bitcoins aren't untraceable, and the likelihood that that is "legitimate" is laughable. If you're going to throw away your money, donate it to this poor guy right here.

It's the politics/society forum?

I realize I don't come on here much, but why is this not acceptable here?

Chiming in as an an-capper. While there is a part of me that likes the idea, it is the vengeful and illogical part. It cannot work because it relies on a God figure. Without the site's leader's pledge to stick only to people who have actually done harm to society, it could easily be a corrupt catch-all murder-for-hire, and that's impossible to know or enforce. But that's just a practical matter of enforcing the site's own stated morality. It certainly doesn't actually abide by the NAP. It's a stretch of logic to apply it here.

Such an extension of the NAP would basically have to state, "anyone who is not actively against those who would coerce me is complicit in the coercion." This is a stretch even when there is direct proximity: The NAP would support the shooting of Kitty Genovese's rapist but not, traditionally, the observers who neither defend nor attack her. While I absolutely support the sentiment that one must consider that such acts are only possible when "good" onlookers do nothing, my NAP framework does not classify the onlooker as equal in guilt to the actual perpetrator.

This "Death Note" situation (anyone who hasn't seen that anime should -- get the Japanese version with English subs -- it's highly relevant) is one in which the observers are removed even further from the action. Politicians are vaguely aware of policies harming people at times, but even the worst of them generally think they're accomplishing good things that need doing. Maybe even Bernanke, who knows? He could be just a die-hard Keynesian. I cannot endorse assassinating fools for being fools, not at this stage in human evolution. It would also seem to me that by the same logical extension, everyone, every neighbor and friend, who has voted them in, or even those who didn't but simply have not armed themselves with pitchforks and begun the revolution, are also complicit. No, logically, the Assassination Market doesn't fit within the NAP at all.

That's not to say there aren't interesting arguments about "greater good" to be had, but, again, those always require a God substitute, and don't fit within the NAP. And like many things that come down to doing a "little bad" for the "greater good" to prevent larger "bad" -- the whole, burn a village to save it bit -- it is almost always a subconsciously lazy way of not continuing on searching for a path which is even less harmful. For example, after the markets crashed, we might have torched the fed, hung Bernanke, and every other banker we can find... but instead we have created this ecosystem around Bitcoin. We may be able to subvert their entire system, all without raising a finger. It may not always be that easy, but it is lazy to resort to violence by default.

The results are not what i suspected.
Well , isn't he a hero , giving power to the people?

Killing someone is just going to give them heaven earlier than you.  Your money would be better spent towards the actual physical manifestation of peace that I engage in.

I think it's important for Bitcoin users to have this conversation. As a new technology that enables lots of new things, Bitcoin and its users are under the spotlight. It's not like gun crime, where the inventors can't be blamed posthumously because they didn't foresee all of the problems with their inventions. Bitcoin development is still in progress, it's a group experiment, and maybe it can be steered in some way to improve the balance of good versus bad?

Even if it seems obvious to us that nothing practical can done to prevent some new crimes because any "cure" would be worse than the disease, we don't know that without discussing it. Every time we find out about some new downside, we should ask ourselves: is it still worth the trouble?

The online discussion itself is also important evidence for outsiders that proves that we're nice, caring humans who care about life and stuff, not just about money or getting rich.

Isn't the poor person who got killed sort of a loser here?  "Win win" but surely not for the actual person who is being killed?

Both statements could be true. If he actually pays the money to the killer(s) he is a maniac. If he doesn't, he is a hero. He would steal money from the killer and from people who wanted to pay to see someone dead. It will lead to big skepticism of people who actually uses assassination market, making it more likely people would not use it anymore. Then it would be a win-win situation.

My opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z2iiinNIl0


Emphasis mine.

which site are we talking about?
and this would make someone kill someone to win a bet, damn
Illegal stuff, we don't need any more of those on bitcoin altough it would give a pump on the price

Look, there's a limit to the crap is ok to post in a bitcoin forum, just because somehow that so called "assassination market" operates in bitcoins.

Nuclear weapons are built with fiat. Should people start littering financial forums with WMD discussions?

 

Probably not, but the NSA are probably masturbating to this conversation a bit like in that South Park "Toilet Safety Administration" episode

Will I get killed if I say the people organising this are lunatics!