Topic: Do you see Silk Road's closure as a positive or negative? (Read 8143 times)

So, it's because of drugs that fiat currency is so inflated compared to BTC?

It's possible is a person or two that believed Bitcoin was hinged on SR and that are getting in now that they saw what happened following the closure. Either way it's looking very positive so far.

Absolutely positive!

I think this was more than a good thing. I know there will be 3 new websites, but when I told someone about btc, first they said was Silk Road. It will ease the burden, and on the other hand like no one ever bought drugs for USD, GBP 

The government does not need those few BTC, BTC are problematic for governments because they can only be generated by proof of work. They hate BTC; chances are that wallet stays permanently frozen.

Since they are the strongest criminal organization by definition, they can make the laws and "legally" counterfeit as much money as they need  

It is called quantitative easing and is currently executed by a subcontractor, the Federal Reserve, with a volume of roughly 45 billion USD per month. The federal "shutdown" was just caused by a minor code flaw, the MAXDEBT variable needed to be increased.  

The end of SR is certainly a bad thing.  Never used it myself, but found it comforting that there is a place that offers more choices than what the regime permits. Having more choices, more freedom is always a good thing. 

Not necessarily.  If they treat it as cash, they could hold it, somehow.  However, I don't think they're equipped to do that.  I think their regulations require such cash actually be kept in a bank account of some kind.

I think they are more likely to treat it as a seized asset of some other sort, like a seized cigarette boat or a seized SUV, and auction it off at some point.  Presumably, the new owner would get the private key and the passphrase, assuming they ever get that out of DPR or by some other means.  Since "other means" would involve DPR giving out his passphrase to someone else or cracking Bitcoin itself, it would probably have to be from DPR.

Good thing,

Now the government will need to turn those BTC into DOLLARS so when they do let me know which exchange they plan to cash out in.  If its Mt.Gox can't wait to see how they plan to get their money wiered.  I see a new job at FBI processing transfers for years unless the fed want to change the banking regulations.

Oh what fun,

Positive, but not because of closing of Silkroad itself.

The guy who was running it was an idiot, a total asshole and a hardcore criminal (he attempted to assasinate somebody). He deserved everything that came his way.

I'm only sorry for some of the poor dealers who are simply delivering goods that people want, I see nothing wrong with this.

Positive, but I already saw online there are incoming similar markets.

personally, for me its a good thing they close it.

People already did, largely because of Silk Road.  While I am by no means on the "oh noooo, drugs, horror!" bandwagon, that kind of thing is definitely an impediment to mainstream acceptance.  I think the fact that Bitcoin itself basically responded with a collective "meh" to shutting down Silk Road shows pretty clearly that Bitcoin and the drug trade are two separate things.

If the shutdown increased the perception that Bitcoin=drugs, there would have been a long-lasting decline in price as investors and users fled for the hills.  Nothing of the sort happened.

If Bitcoin being seen as related to drugs is a problem (though I think it is more neutral), then Silk Road actually being in operation contributed to that a lot more than it being shut down.

I don't think SR being shut down is a fantastic thing.  It disrupted a lot of economic activity, even if that activity was illegal.  It also, apparently, has taken about 5% of existing BTC out of circulation for the foreseeable future, and maybe forever (though this reduction in supply might have helped stabilize the price).  But it is hardly a disaster, even for the Bitcoin drug trade.

Negative, now people relate drugs to bitcoin...

What? Who's going to help you survive without the daddy state to look after you? Lemme guess, you're going to run for the hills with your dog and your shotgun.

If anything, I've seen a slight uptick in interest.  For that matter, even to get "Silk Road" as a "suggested" search term, I have to add an "s" after Bitcoin, and then it appears near the bottom.

It's good. Even if it reduces the amount of people interested in Bitcoin. We should no longer be tainted by the market.

Thats true, most fear Bitcoin is just for black market transactions. Feds made great service to Bitcoin adoption, so definitively positive news

These weren't definitions, but examples of usage, generally from well-regarded sources, i.e. people who could be expected to use words correctly.

The actual definition is neutral, as they usually are.


Of course, even here, it is defined using words which themselves generally have negative connotations, such as "lawlessness" and "disorder."  I would argue the first to attempt to carry out anarchistic political action, identifying it as such, would be certain of the French Revolutionaries, and the first serious attempt to put an intellectual foundation to it and explicitly endorse the term would be Bakunin (although other thinkers had of course contemplated the issue).

My point, and I am surprised it is even arousing any controversy whatsoever, is that through the vast majority of the history of the word, it has carried almost exclusively negative connotations, and even to this day, the majority of usage of the word is intended to refer to something negative.  The difference is that at least since Bakunin, there have always serious philosophical proponents of the concept, as distinguished from, say, teenage punk rockers using the anarchy symbol for shock value (not to say that punks have never had serious ideas).

Yes...... I'm not sure you've fully absorbed the point I was making. To paraphrase:

Could it be possible that the Oxford English Dictionary definitions were themselves politicised? It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage etc etc

I don't care what society you live in, they all have laws and rules, the only anarchy you can have is the one you make for yourself.  Anything that facilitates commerce, freedom, and such while obeying laws and rules is good, anything that breaks laws and rules is bad.

Now...if we don't like some of those rules, well then we need to change them.  I'm no fan of over-regulation and micromanagement of our lives, but that's not bitcoin's fault, that's our fault for losing control of our governments, and we should fight hard to get that back.  But this is about bitcoin, as a long term means to that end in my view.  If we truly want bitcoin to succeed, and I think we do, then it has to be legitimate.  For it to be legitimate, it must be crime-resistant (nothing is crime proof) and must frown on exposed illegal activity.

I'm not for anarchy, but I'm certainly for a lot less government and a lot more freedom in our lives.  But again, that's not bitcoins fault that we let our government slip into a soft tyranny.  Hopefully when bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, we will take at least two tools of government force away permanently, namely bad fiscal and bad monetary policy.

I see very little in your quotes that would equate anarchy with chaos, death, doom , destruction, floods, plagues, locusts, dogs and cats sleeping together....

Let's examine them one by one, shall we?


I suppose in today's vernacular, that would be 'unlawful liberty or license'. Yeah, so what? The condition of having no law that otherwise restricts it, is definitive of liberty. And as license is permission from so-called 'authority' to do something that would otherwise be unlawful, this makes sense - no 'authority', no license required. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.


If anarchy _was_ confusion by definition, it would not have to be called out separately, now would it? Further, as the USC runs tens of thousands of pages, and the CFR is many times that, there is no way any person could even begin to understand the totality of 'law' which might apply to them. I put forth the assertion that this is definitively confusion. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.


Well, duh. No Head, no ruler. No ruler, an archis. Anarchy. mere definition - so what? I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.


This seems a non sequitur. If there is a state of anarchy, there is no 'government', as we know the term. Or perhaps Burke is actually indicting government - merely pointing out that government uses the term 'anarchy' as a scapegoat do misdirect the public from understanding that it is the government's own actions that have brought calamity upon the populace. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.


There are two things here. The first is saying that 'the absence of true sovereigns necessitates anarchy'. There are further two replies to this first clause. The first of these replies is that this is a simple definition - assuming by 'sovereign', he means 'rulers'. The second reply to this first clause is that, under anarchy, one could consider each and every individual to be sovereign. If one adopts this definition, his statement does not make sense. To his second clause, he is merely rendering an unsupported opinion. I personally consider national socialism to be pretty damn hateful - but millions used to be adherents. Again, I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.


Again, merely the word used in its proper context. No king, no ruler, an archis, anarchy. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

While I grant that for much of my lifetime, much of the populace has equated 'anarchy' with the throwing of molotov cocktails, I see nothing in your quoted material that would indicate it was ever so.