Pages:
Author

Topic: Do you see Silk Road's closure as a positive or negative? - page 2. (Read 8143 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
Could it be possible that the early published definitions were themselves politicised? Old documents are not quite as good as the documentary evidence we can summon up from, say, the 20th century. It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage that were traditionally kept under tight control.

Perhaps, but the OED is generally pretty good at getting earlier usages of words, if not always at getting the very first use.  The examples from the OED generally reflect standard use of the time, not oddball uses that would have been out of the norm even then.

And to the idiot before you, of course I know what etymology is.  I also know what the ignore button is, and it's been used.  I was discussing usage, since that was being discussed, not etymology, since that wasn't.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

Quote
   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

Could it be possible that the early published definitions were themselves politicised? Old documents are not quite as good as the documentary evidence we can summon up from, say, the 20th century. It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage that were traditionally kept under tight control.
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

Quote
  1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

Man do you know what etymology is?

https://www.google.com/search?q=etomology+anarchy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#channel=fflb&q=etymology+anarchy&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1

Read a book.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

Quote
   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.
newbie
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
I think when people saw the price change wasn't that drastic post SR... that's a good thing. I've often heard speculators say how black market transactions contribute to the majority of the BTC ecosystem.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 1000
www.DonateMedia.org
I think ultimately it's a good thing. The SR closure has dispelled the notion that Bitcoin is only a thing because of the drug market, and the wide spread coverage of this story has seemed to be fairly neutral of Bitcoin. The market certainly did react with a little sell off, but historically is negligible.  Hopefully this leads to a better perception of Bitcoin as an authentic currency, and that its prominence is not driven solely by the Internet black market as was once believed. It was an important moment that Bitcoin is holding steady after Silk Road went down.

Plus, Dread Pirate Roberts was an idiot of the highest caliber and is the sole reason for Silk Roads downfall. He only got busted because he made a bunch of careless mistakes easily tracked by the FBI. The technology that drove Silk Road however works perfectly, and SRs closure was not the result of the FBI breaking TOR or Bitcoin security, but simple police work accomplished with a few warrants and basic deductive reasoning.

There are already several copycat sites in the works to replace SR, and I doubt they will be as careless as DPR. The FBI "victory" will be short lived.
newbie
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
Should be positive in a long run.
As for now, at least more people come to realize in the existence of Bitcoin.. although they may consider Bitcoin as "currency mostly for buying drugs". Well, I hope they will eventually google it to be informed better.

Lol, I guess it's not like he will brags to anyone about being a mastermind of one of the biggest drug market  Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchy actually means "without rulers". That's it.

That's not what it's meant throughout its history as a word in the English language.  In fact, the word having any positive connotations at all is a novelty.
full member
Activity: 138
Merit: 100
It's great. Another challenge we passed. I was worried that bitcoin economy is working only due to black market but now it's ok because even if that was true, nobody can destroy it -> stable price.


This

I was nicely surprised the price recovered soooo fast
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
It's great. Another challenge we passed. I was worried that bitcoin economy is working only due to black market but now it's ok because even if that was true, nobody can destroy it -> stable price.
full member
Activity: 231
Merit: 100
Quote
Housemates Say They Saw No Clues Of Silk Road Or The Dread Pirate Roberts

I'm not sure what they expected. A T-Shirt?
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...
DPR not only made voluminous public statements on the Internet as DPR, but had made very similar statements under his real name, also to the Internet.  That combined with more blatant errors, like using an email address that actually consisted entirely of his real name and gmail, made his discovery inevitable.

I imagine that FBI and associates had to try fairly hard for some time to NOT catch him.  I'll wager that the calculus was that he was doing no particular harm and bringing in a lot of leads while SR was in operation.  And I suppose that the primary focus of their efforts was to get a hold of the private keys controlling his stash and figuring out who else he might be working with directly.  Probably he was making progress toward vanishing is why they eventually pulled the plug.

legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1003
This might be the real DPR(or rather simply SR), but certainly not the current owner.
There have been between 2-5 owners since the Gawker article.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
He ended up having to channel his own knowledge of what he'd achieved, precarious as it always was given his early "OpSec" mistakes. He just couldn't help talking about it all, even if it was under the guise of a latter-day pirate. Writing a stream of full blown confessions, and changing nothing but your real name is not a great way to be a cyber drug kingpin, well, long term at least.

If your sole security against capture and prosecution is anonymity, you'd best get that part of it right.  And if you're going to do that and make voluminous public statements, they'd best not be in exact accordance with things you have said under your real name.  The Unabomber got caught largely because he insisted on publishing a manifesto, which his brother recognized as being in his writing style.  Otherwise, he probably would have remained a free man indefinitely.

DPR not only made voluminous public statements on the Internet as DPR, but had made very similar statements under his real name, also to the Internet.  That combined with more blatant errors, like using an email address that actually consisted entirely of his real name and gmail, made his discovery inevitable.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
DPR's bust (whether or not it is legit) has done one good thing, and that is to provide an example of how not to do it.  I.e. a centralized market under the control of a megalomaniacal ideologue who, moreover, directly participated in illegal activity himself and profited vastly from it.

To be fair to him, he got one aspect totally right, and that was to attempt to operate as an anonymous lone wolf. I don't think anyone could successfully pull it off with other people knowing your identity, unless it was sponsored by a powerful government.

He ended up having to channel his own knowledge of what he'd achieved, precarious as it always was given his early "OpSec" mistakes. He just couldn't help talking about it all, even if it was under the guise of a latter-day pirate. Writing a stream of full blown confessions, and changing nothing but your real name is not a great way to be a cyber drug kingpin, well, long term at least.
sr. member
Activity: 370
Merit: 250
It's not a black and white issue.

It's good because it shows that the bitcoin economy is not relying on SR.

It's bad because it shows that tyrants gunna tyrant. It's also bad that this had to happen for us to find out the economy doesn't rely on SR.
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
Not every user of such a platform would make online black markets, but if it were designed properly it wouldn't be possible to stop anyone who wanted to.

Why DPR is in trouble is not that he designed a website, but that he personally and directly facilitated illegal black market activity, publicly promoted it under his name, making it clear that this was his intention, and directly took a commission from activity he made it very clear he knew was illegal, and was illegal on purpose.

Someone who designed a p2p system that allowed the creation of online markets and either remained mum on their intentions or, for that matter, actually had no intention but to create an anonymous online market, would have much less chance of running afoul of the law.

DPR's bust (whether or not it is legit) has done one good thing, and that is to provide an example of how not to do it.  I.e. a centralized market under the control of a megalomaniacal ideologue who, moreover, directly participated in illegal activity himself and profited vastly from it.

That's fair comment, I don't see how anyone can really dispute that unless you're in the anti establishment, all else is forgiven, folk hero camp. In the final analysis whatever happens to him is largely self inflicted.

That said I do not support the false wars on some drugs and some terror, which in truth, are really about attacking what little freedom and liberty is left. All they really achieve is a tightening and extending of the power and control the structures of the state possess over everyone's life.

What we need is someone to beat them at their own game but that game is bent and that's where they have the advantage, the crooks are in charge and free thinking people need to figure out some way to get back what has been taken away from them by the banksters on wall street and their captured government puppets.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
Not every user of such a platform would make online black markets, but if it were designed properly it wouldn't be possible to stop anyone who wanted to.

Why DPR is in trouble is not that he designed a website, but that he personally and directly facilitated illegal black market activity, publicly promoted it under his name, making it clear that this was his intention, and directly took a commission from activity he made it very clear he knew was illegal, and was illegal on purpose.

Someone who designed a p2p system that allowed the creation of online markets and either remained mum on their intentions or, for that matter, actually had no intention but to create an anonymous online market, would have much less chance of running afoul of the law.

DPR's bust (whether or not it is legit) has done one good thing, and that is to provide an example of how not to do it.  I.e. a centralized market under the control of a megalomaniacal ideologue who, moreover, directly participated in illegal activity himself and profited vastly from it.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
Now it's only a matter of packaging those building blocks into a user friendly application. Sooner or later someone is going to do it.
I think the right approach is to build protocols and software that allow anyone to create any kind of marketplace they want and link them together into a searchable distributed database.

Not every user of such a platform would make online black markets, but if it were designed properly it wouldn't be possible to stop anyone who wanted to.
Pages:
Jump to: