Topic: Do you see Silk Road's closure as a positive or negative? - page 3. (Read 8143 times)

You don't need a centralized website to do achieve what Silk Road achieved.

Apart from Bitcoin and Tor, all you need is:

1) A secure p2p messaging system
2) A p2p identity management and rating system
3) A p2p data store for storing pictures etc.
4) A distributed escrow system


All those things already exist to some extent.

1) can be achieved by Bitmessage.
2) can be achieved by a combination of Namecoin and PGP web of trust.
3) can be achieved by Freenet, Bittorrent, Rapidshare etc.
4) can be achieved by multisig transactions in combination with 2)

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.

We have reached an age where online black markets are pretty much inevitable, so we may as well stop worrying and learn to live with them.

No impact, only 26000 bitcoins frozen, in this community seems many people have bitcoins more than 20000 according to a poll result.

Even if I didn't know were they just joking on that poll.

negative

Closing silk road won't stop black markets selling drugs for bitcoins, so if someone wants to link it with drugs, they will always find an example, a non-argument imo to think this is positive.
Furthermore I think all drugs should be legal, it's nobody's right to tell another person what he can use or can't use. And I actually don't sell drugs or use any besides from time to time the legal ones (alcohol, tobacco and weed). So even if it isn't useful for me, it is for others and thanks to silk road's rating system, people knew that they had something good. And not some garbage that could kill them from a shady dealer on the street.

Because established currencies like USD are never, ever used in black markets.

Positive a million times over. So happy it collapse, and bitcoin didn't. Really shows the integrity of the currency and it's use for other things POST black market. 

Negative.

SR going down was cutting the head off a hydra. At least 5 more have sprung up. Now they won't be lax about security. The US Govt decided to get cheap press and a easy kill, rather than mine it long term. They just fired a shot in the dark, got lucky and all the other game in the area made a run for it and knows better now.

Its like trapping pigs. you dont shoot or trap the first one you see. Otherwise they all learn they teach the kids and you never catch one again.

You setup a HUGE ASS trap. feed them all for weeks nice and fat get them comfortable and then nail the whole thing in one shot.

Sometimes the govt does this. usually they blow it.

Most of the time the idiots are the ones getting caught for obvious setups.

This isn't what I intended...

I support people who are capable of using drugs responsibly. They should not be criminalised, it's immoral. What I'm leading to is that the online agora approach takes alot of restraint away from the buyer, and that's why I used the LSD example. It's difficult to imagine a teenager saying "what the hell, may as well have a try of the top line opium", but maybe they wouldn't be so cautious as to avoid strong psychedelics, and that could turn out to be a really negative experience if they're not mindful of what the risks are.

I remember some younger kids at a party a year ago procuring amphetamines, then proceeding to ask about as to how to take it etc (it was all pasty and gluey, us older guys were as non-plussed as they were). When it didn't hit them over an hour later, they all started wanting to take more of the stuff, claiming they can't have taken enough. One of them warned the others off, saying to be patient as it was working out for him. The rest did more, and regretted it very quickly.

Some drugs just aren't responsible full stop, I don't think there's such thing as a responsible crack user, that stuff was engineered to destroy a person's will. If governments banned stuff that makes sense to ban, I'd support that. But not weed and psychedelics, they're no worse than alcohol in the damage they can do, and they're arguably more positive experiences than alcohol, too.

Freedom is the opposite of anarchy. Freedom means everything is permitted. But not everything is beneficial. Freedom is the right and the opportunity to make correct choices.

Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. Drug abusers come to mind instantly.

Bitcoins becoming a regular currency is more important than drugs.
So I voted positive.

is this question for real? dumbest question ever...

Yes Carlton, everybody who ever used drugs are innocent children, who are indoctrinated to use Heroin and Crack. Law enforcement, the saviors of the world, should also crack down on any means of preserving privacy, because its just drug dealers and pedobears out there.

Positive:

1. Parents can breathe easy now that their kids can't get LSD posted to them from Amsterdam. Drug prohibition used to have a mechanistic benefit there, as most drug dealers know little kids have to be initiated into the "keep mouth shut" culture before they'll risk selling higher scheduled drugs to them.

2. High profile "drug market busted" puts the emphasis on Russ Ulbrect and not our beloved Bitcoin.

3. Price dive was reactionary, small and inconsequential.


Neutral:

At least two new sites are already taking Silk Roads place. Kind of overrides positive no. 1.


Negative:

No negatives from any perspective, seemingly. If you want to buy drugs online, you still can. If you wanted to brush off the stink of the underworld, you now can.

Article hidden behind bullshit paywall.

Too lazy to write:

Beware turning drug dealers into folk heroes

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/hugorifkind/article3889234.ece

a hero is snowden (or maybe satoshi) but no drug-dealer.

Too lazy to write:
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-the-silk-road-shutdown-makes-everyone-less-safe

I think it's good in the same sense Napster going down was good.  It clears the way for a less vulnerable architecture.  While I do not approve of what DPR did, I do in general approve of anonymous marketplaces, whether or not they are used for illegal as well as legal purposes.

I would think highly positive.  As a person who was very hesitant to buy any BTC early on because of the concern of it being connected to nefarious purposes, this is great.  I am quite relieved, honestly.

And the fact that the price has remained relatively stable in spite of it?  I would have never guessed that could even happen.  So far it is a great thing.

I voted negative but am impressed with how the BTC price has held up.  While I agree silk road linked BTC to drugs it was clearly a popular spot and did decent volume of BTC transactions.  IF second generation sites come to replace it then maybe not a big deal, but clearly not good.

Again..caring about how the lamestream media portrays something is downright stupid. Especially something that threatens the powers that be like bitcoin does. I would be more worried if the media DIDN'T portray bitcoin in a bad light.