Topic: I could just kill for some Bitcoins - page 2. (Read 8173 times)

I strongly agree with this.  Agorism / market anarchism doesn't give people license to act immorally.  Indeed, people have a duty to prevent infringement on others' rights to life, liberty, and property.


I strongly disagree with this.  Who's the victim here?

What's this mumbo jumbo about legal/illegal?  Is that like how you're supposed to do what the schoolyard bully says?

I agree on the fact that some politicians, countries and companies do unjust things involving but not not limited to killing people. The world economic system is plain slavery in my eyes actually (why I suggested to have BTC with a redistribution of 1%/month of all coins to all citizen-accounts). Now the big players have to convince the majority within their society that they are doing things for a better world and any harm is just collateral murder damage.

With an anonymous website and an anonymous currency there would not be the need for such diplomacy. Evil means would be much easier accessible. While the message would be much more honest, the messenger could stay hidden.

Thinking about it I wonder if maybe the "new" way would be worse at all.


I strongly oppose to the position that any murder that is not the result of a legitimate trial is a good thing. For example the assassination of Usāma ibn Lādin was not in any way rightful.
Bounties on the legal defence I would consider a good thing but the risk involved doing it openly would be much lower in almost any case.


hello? is freedom of speech that far already in your country? are you afraid of being sued or even brought to guantánamo over hypothetical discussions of the malicious potential of some new software? maybe it is time for this forum to go underground, too. tor hidden service. invitation only. and don't forget your tin foil hat!!1!

I don't know what you are talking about, what president ? Stop that treasonous clatter. I was clearly referring to the delicious medieval beverage, Potus Ypocras.
As for Assange, now that's a man that deserves to be killed for terrorizing the mighty american army and people. Long live our beloved leader ! Glory to the sleveeless one !

I got this one, to disassociate bitcoin with criminal activities. Currently in the public eye BitCoin is an unknown, never heard of it, etc. Our wonderfully paid for senator is trying to paint a picture that BitCoin is a currency exclusively used to pay for activites that are illegal. The picture he's trying to paint would make BitCoin = Criminals in the public eye. He succeeds here in the US, other countries will follow, which hurts BitCoin.

However; if BitCoin adopters leveraging how open BitCoin is help presecuters. Well that leaves people questioning what this BitCoin thing really is. Some people will look into it, others will continue to ignore it's existence. Which is either neutral or good for BitCoin.

Now as supporters of BitCoin we should both discourage it's use for illegal activities as well as promote it's legal uses when possible, we have to paint our own picture BitCoin = Commedity, something of value used in the exchange for goods an services. No more, no less.

(Honestly on non violent crime note, personally I'd rather drugs were legal, put a tax on the drugs, and call it a day. Personally I put people puffing their brains away as no better or worse then the person who destroys their body by poor dietary habits)

Even though I usually always laugh at this kind of paranoid posts, you are right.

It seems some people are forgetting how paranoid the US government is. Even schoolkids have been jailed in the US for making drawings about stabbing a president.
Hell, it's more than likely the NSA has algorithms that detect this type of threads online automatically (even though they would find this is all just hypothetical)

I don't like the "chilling effect" in online discussions, I'm all for discussing even the worst sides of humanity, but please, if you do it on a public forum, draw the line somewhere.

Really, don't give sensationalist reporters the opportunity to claim "bitcoin users planning assassinations and discuss killing head of state" in bold headlines.

Are you all fkin serious?

Yes, please, by all means give King Whitehat more reasons to roar into our quiant little utopian fantasy town with a Grade 1.A Thunderfuck....


OP, you do realize that even casually mentioning murdering the President is actionable, right? And considering the level of scrutiny being applied here.. I would be very VERY careful about making such statements so casually, if I were you. In a PUBLIC forum??

Mindbogglingly stupid.

For all the handwringing about Bitcoin's "image problem", this forum and its unrolling archive of casual chat about revolution, assasination, CP, etc etc etc is an absolute goldmine for any anti-BTC PR type with 10 minutes to do a few forum searches..

FFS, irc exists for a reason.

Big Brother IS watching.

As counter examples, imagine bounties for...

* The assassination of Hitler, Gadaffi, or any other tyrant
* The assassination of representatives who vote to curb civil liberties
* The assassination of the owner of a large corporation that violates the rights of others

you examples are funny cause all the other currencies are already used for:

* get billions of $ worth of oil for killing 100.000+ civilian ppl
* get billions of $ for illegally occupy land that´s, even according to the UN, not yours & oppress the ppl living there

so the things you posted here seem quiet harmless...

Why would you want to help a bunch of thugs put non-violent people in prison?

If Bitcoin is made illegal, will you do your best to help law enforcement catch Bitcoin users?

I'm a little disappointed that there was no poll option for "it is inevitable, but concerned citizens should do their best to help law enforcement catch anyone involved"

That's how I feel about the Silk Road too, incidentally.

Before bitcoin it was fairly easy to pay an assassin.  It still is.  Cash is cash is cash.  Dope, murder, blah blah blah.  It is irrelevant.

This thread is spooky.

Actually such a site or the business model involved would be a big threat to BTC and TOR etc.

Imagine bounties for
* 10 jews bombed
* a dirty bomb killing at least x people on Berlin
* an A-bomb somewhere.

That directly leads to bounties for
* not setting off said A-bomb: "Country XY put forces together to find the bomb! If by [date] there are x coins on that bounty, I will let you find the bomb." With the said service people would trust that the guy will only get the bounty if he actually has a bomb. Spooky, isn't it?
* not killing hostages: I kidnapped person x.

Send money to address ... to see him alive is clearly easier than to meet in the park to hand over the money. Oh ... how boring all those action movies will get

Actually cryptography makes all dirty crimes easier. Of course bounties to kill dictators might again be much easier to be payed by so called democratic states so maybe they see an incentive for such services, too.

I hope such services involving people getting killed will face the moral of enough hackers to take them down individually. Maybe a bounty to take down the bounty site anybody?

"Assassination market" is a contradiction in terms. Obviously, a murderer does not take into account the will of his victim.

Julian Assange would not be accepted for listing on an AP market, as he is not a government employee.

I think you are ignoring the highly advantageous position the killer has in such a game. Think about the budget of L.H Oswald versus the money spent for Kennedy's protection during his term, it could easily be 1:1000 or 1:10000 yet it still wasn't enough. Basically, the attacker can focus on the weakest link, while the defender must protect all avenues of attack.

It would also make life 100% crappy for the target with a modest budget. Those who pledge the money are assured that Assange can't have any public life or vacation and is pretty much confined to a well guarded secret fortress, Osama stile. The mere threat of such a life can quickly silence unpopular individuals - self-reinforcing mob rule. The pledgers don't even pay the bounty price, just the interest on it; if the bounty is dropped they recover the pledge.


I would argue that both the demand and supply clearly exist. Therefore the absence of such systems is itself evidence they are cumbersome to the point of being impractical when using regular cash. The apparent ease with which the task can be achieved using cryptocash points that we are dealing with a different beast altogether.

Because publicly showing a lot of people want someone killed, ASAP, is likely to get that person to protect themselves, decreasing the odds of success for the assassin.

I think we're agreeing on the same point - that while bitcoin is similar to cash, it enables transactions that cash can't provide. My point about people arguing *against* bitcoin is, you can apply the same objections to cash transactions. Could I start up some kind of anonymous dead-drop system using cash-filled briefcases and codewords? Sure, it may be more cumbersome but it can be done.

In summary, bitcoin is better than cash even though you can level the same criticisms against both.

I'm pretty sure on any given date there are quite a number of people who would like to see Julian Assange dead, I don't think there's any surprise about that. Maybe even thousands of people willing to pledge a 100$ bill for the job, as I'm sure there are many killers out there who could arrange the assassination of Assange for a few hundred thousand $. Yet Assange lives on, because in the physical world it would be impossible to connect that demand with the supply. You would either be jailed when soliciting the murder, or when picking up the pay.
The proposed Tor + Bitcoin combo connects supply and demand, and if the technologies work as advertised the parties are safe and the payout is certain. What exactly would preclude people with full brains to use it ?


The algorithm I propose does not work with cash for obvious reasons. Can you propose an algorithm that achieves a similar level of privacy based on cash ? Alternatively, can you point to a flaw that would prevent the algorithm to work as proposed ? For it seems without answer to either, cryptocash can indeed enable transactions regular cash can't.


Bringing pie ninjas is a bit of a derailment since pie ninjas are already plausible in our society. It's like arguing that you can make forks and spoons out of HEU that are only slightly more radioactive than depleted uranium ones, so HEU can't be that bad. The real question is if the preponderant use of the technology is the immoral one, not if benign uses are also possible.

Well, like those above me said, it's just a consequence of freedom.  Not to derail this conversation too much, but this gave me an idea for a pie-in-face market.  People could contribute money to pie-bounties of people they'd like to see get a pie in the face.  Then pie-ninjas could perform these tasks. 

This list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_pied would get a lot longer.  Can someone start working on the art for this market?