Topic: Losing the High Moral Ground (Read 2822 times)

My stealth flying batmobile is in the shop.

Yeah, because >2 internet drug dealers have time to be flying a government registered and inspected plane around.

You're getting into thou dost protesth too much territory with your support of prohibition, which only massively benefits drug dealers.

... and those who get off on dressing in black kevlar and shooting dogs and innocent humans.

Yes you can be a "little bit pregnant" if you have a non-viable fetus. Don't use false dichotomies against a positivist. We have more shades of grey than than an E. L. James novel.

2 grand won't even top off my G-6 yo.

Small transactions? Is $2000 small to you? High fees? Is FREE, high to you? http://www.amazon.com/gift-cards/b?ie=UTF8&node=2238192011

No - but drug dealing was 



Which is it gonna be then ? Its anonymous - or it isn't. You can't be a little bit pregnant - even if you were "very very careful"

Gift cards are used for small transactions and they have high fees. They are not practical for something as ambitious as Silk Road. It's also suspicious if someone drops a briefcase full of cards at the customer service desk at Walmart every week.

I fear this will happen at some point. We already have ransomware with the cryptolocker code. Why not demand money for protection? It has been done for centuries/millennia. It's one of the unsolved problems, like assassination markets.  I wish it were not so, but if an event like this happens it may be the end of legal use in the US.

Thats really reassuring if you would buy my kiddie porn for gold .

Anonymous cards and irc drug "stores" were invented long before silkroad...

I did not suggest anything about continuous surveillance. In fact, I highly recommend using gold for transactions. That is not anonymous, but it is good enough for you to sell your kiddie porn.


Silk Road was not possible until an anonymous internet money was invented, not as a sociological reaction. It was an opportunist exploiting an technology for which it was not intended. Your characterization of laws as "malicious" belies your ulterior motives as an anarchist.

Using randomly created addresses was not the original intent of Hashcash and Bitcoin. It was intended to use email addresses. That would have avoided the anonymity problem. I'm not making a black and white, good vs. evil argument here. Bitcoin is already anonymous if you are very very careful. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be so anonymous that any street thug can use it do their thing. I know I won't stop the Secret Squirrel Brigade from doing what they do either. All I'm saying is that this is why we can't have nice things.

Most pedos were captured by using "baits" and infiltrating into their networks not by analyzing their transactions. Same thing applies to most other criminals. So suggesting zero anonymity and continuous surveillance is not just dangerously dumb but mostly useless. If OP want such goodies then he should move to North Korea .

Is there a goal?  That is, is there one collective goal that everyone who uses Bitcoin has to agree on?  Or, is each individual free to decide for themselves what their own goals are? 

Individuals should be free to choose their own goals in life and if they determine that Bitcoin can help them achieve those goals then they should be free to use it in whatever manner they choose and if an individual decides that Bitcoin is not beneficial to them then they should be free to not use it.

This is a great example of how disconnected some people are from reality.

Silkroad and darknet are a natural reaction to malicious laws and are a net benefit for humanity (and bitcoin adoption).

Do you really think that buying/selling/consuming various substances is a criminal act which should be punishable?

It's one thing that you choose to avoid drugs but everyone should have the freedom to decide what they want consume.

I advise that you read up on how laws have been created and how law enforcement works.

Fortunately you can still catch the kiddie porn folks through their payment systems. Err wait. That was the point of the OP.

I recall when bittorrent came out people wanted to destroy it because some pedophiles could use it for kiddie porn.

And yet it continues on.

It has created a framework for many technologies that promote freedom including Bitcoin.

To have killed it back then just because of the few people that are already subject to laws using it would have been a big mistake.

I don't think anonymous payments are or ever were the goal with bit coin. The idea of a public ledger kind of says that neither did the inventor.

I am willing to give up some privacy if it means governments give it up as well. 

Satoshi Nakamoto did not place anonymity as a priority with Bitcoin, nor do most core devs. The Secret Squirrel Brigade are the group of coders that want to bend Bitcoin to fit their ideology that freedom==chaos.

Do you consider Satoshi Nakamoto to be part of this "Secret Squirrel Brigade"?

Finally, someone who almost gets it. Forgive the hyperbole about VT. TRANSPARENCY is Bitcoin's greatest gift. The BLOCKCHAIN will give us FREEDOM! Let's just forget about the Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap rhetoric from the Secret Squirrel Brigade. 'Mkay?

Your Orwellian gubbermit got that way because they can print money. We can stop that without making money anonymous, just make it finite.

Eliminating dark cryptocurrencies doesn't solve the problem of the Virginia Tech freshman.

I'm all for a more transparent world where dark cryptocurrencies aren't needed.  But as long as we have oppressive governments that are trying to spy on their citizens with Orwellian surveillance networks then there will be a supply.  The only reason there is supply is because there is demand.  Eliminate the demand and there will be no supply.

Are you ready to have school buses bombed for ransom? Dark cryptocurrencies would make this so easy any Virginia Tech freshman could do it.

Every victimless action is, or eventually will be made, a "crime". If you are a human, you are a "criminal" to some degree exceeding zero.

Nothing is "risk free", and extortion has existed long before cryptocurrency was invented.

Most people do not understand that there is no such thing as "selective" freedom: either everybody is free, or nobody is.

Freedom comes always with a cost, focusing on the "bad press" that black markets could give to Bitcoin is incredibly narrow minded (despite of one's opinion on "drugs" or this or that "illegal" thing), because the flourishing of "black" markets is just a blatant example of the incredible empowering force that Bitcoin constitutes.

It has everything to do with them. There is no other way to do it risk free without cryptos.

That has absolutely nothing to do with cryptos.

Are you ready to be personally extorted by anonymous bomb threats for anonymous payments in what you consider civilized society?

Just because some people use something like Bitcoin for illegal purposes doesn't mean that YOU don't have the moral high ground. You might even make the case that fiat currencies don't have the moral high ground, either, because they're used to buy and sell drugs and you also get scammers, Ponzi schemes, and all the ills that come with having an overly centralized financial system.

And, guys, keep in mind that calling someone a hypocrite doesn't mean that he can't make your case for you.

Prisons are one of the fastest growing industries in America. They are filled with folks that think like you. Be proud to be in the company of so many open minded people. I'm sure SR2 will join them as well.

QFT.

Black markets and vices like gambling and alcohol are socially unpalatable but necessary parts of a robust economy. It is naive to think otherwise. 

You are so close-minded. Black markets are the best thing that happened recently, thanks to crypto. Anyways, did you know there are already at least 2 markets that are bigger than SR1? Relation to SR1 closing is complete bullshit, black markets are stronger than ever.

Freedom, bud.

I think you're confusing society with government here. You mention society, and at the same time ban and imprisonment but since society is not the one that decides neither to ban nor to imprison I think that government(s) is the proper word.

However, society's role is even more important than the one governments can play regarding cryptos simply by accepting them or not.

Gunpowder were invented in China and used as firework.

As for metal:
http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/cramb/Processing/history.html


Technologies were weaponized by the government, not the population.

I placed this in Politics and Society because I know most of the real idiots don't sub this board. I enjoyed the discussion.  It will be interesting to see if society at large tolerates lawlessness created by this technology or bans it and imprisons its developers. They started a war with Iraq under the pretense that they had aluminum tubes. It doesn't take much to bring down the holy ban hammer.

It seems we agree.

I didn't say an argument ad hominem isn't an argument (even if stupid), I said an insult isn't an argument, because it's a qualification of the author of the ideas. On the ideas, is neutral, unless the two are connected in some kind of logic by an argument.

To say A can't make an argument pro freedom because he don't have slaves would be absurd. So, argument ad hominem most have some logic. An insult is pure qualification of the author, only implicitly/indirectly can say anything on the ideas.

An insult is an opinion. An argument is an opinion. It's a statement of fact. Facts can be valid or invalid. An argument ad hominem is still an argument. If it is fallacious, then it weakens the argument because the facts they represent are invalid or irrelevant. Calling Jefferson a hypocrite about his opinions about freedom knowing he was a slave owner, doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion, but it calls many things into question and should not be used to strengthen a contemporary modern argument about freedom on its own merit because it's cliche.

For 95% of us it still is. When bit coin became truly valuable it began to attract some nefarious people. This kind of thing isn't unexpected and is a sign of how valuable it has become.

A pure insult isn't an argument ad hominem,  because it isn't an argument.  An argument most have some intrinsic logic directed against the ideas or have some support on facts. Like saying his arguments on freedom are irrelevant because he had slaves.

An insult, at most, might be a preparation for an argument ad hominem.

Gawd, someone let me talk to Stefan Molyneux about this. I'm sure he would try to champion this line of thinking.

This makes no sense. Of course ad hominem is an argument, it may be a fallacious one, but it's still an argument. If it also serves to point out another fallacy, then it may be a valid argument. This is getting so sophomoric and nothing to do with my points about buying drugs from strangers. I would pay to see someone argue this in public in front of cameras. It would be worth the laughs you would get from (insert argument ad populum here).

Calling someone an hypocrite isn't an argument, is an insult, may or may not be justified. But of course, as all insults, it's ad hominem.

I did not make an argument but merely shared my opinion. Elwar made the (valid) argument

And I impuned his moral authority. Your argument is subjective and invalid.

I didn't use this quote to strengthen my case. He merely put it to words rather well (and just stealing it is bad)

I haven't even been around as long as a lot of people and I've already seen this change as well. It used to be about community and closeness. Now people screw over their own friends to get ahead and make a little extra money. The entire dynamic has completely gone downhill compared to where it once was.

Argument from authority then.

No, but claiming his opinion is invalid because he's a hypocrite, is.

Calling one a hypocrite is not ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem

Said the slaveholder. Carry on.

I cannot. Not now, not ever.

I couldn't agree more. Freedom cannot be contained, the old adage "your freedom stops where someone else's begins" is completely wrong, since if freedom stops, it's not freedom in the first place. It should actually read "your freedom begins where someone else's begins".


There is no freedom in harming others, so there's no limitation of freedom there. This distortion has been brought forward mostly by right-wing philosophers who had no idea what freedom is, For them it was the fear of losing their privileges mostly

+1

I can accept limitations on freedom to harm ourselves if that harms others. But the burden of proof is on the one that wants to limit the freedom of others to harm themselves.

Besides, if we conclude that repression is inefficient and that empowers criminal gangs, I have no doubt about the course of action.

You hit the nail on the head.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Jefferson

Carry on.

Silk Road II is now bigger than Silk Road I was (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140501/18550127094/silk-road-20-now-larger-than-silk-road-ever-was.shtml), so in this aspect nothing changed.

In other words, "I don't know so I'll go along with a tiny new fad that failed."

That's right, and to protect society, those abusing freedoms will have their freedoms mitigated. Those are called statutes and referred to as "laws".

With freedom comes freedoms we do not agree with.

The moral high ground includes tolerance of other people's freedoms.

You know something has created more freedom when the "bad" part of it is the fact that some people are now free to do "X" that you do not agree with.

I don't put drugs in my body - but if I did, and lets say I was a drug addict (and so compelled to use, so to speak) I think I'd rather trust someone selling drugs with a proven track record and who had established a relationship of trust with individuals in the same predicament as myself.

What has any of this to do with bitcoin ? Bitcoin is "good" because its not used in transactions where the purchased product is contraband ? Bitcoins "high moral ground" was never based on this, for me at least.

Using fiat to acquire illegal drugs in the traditional fashion  [ie. cash to a Machiavellian gangsters flunkey], certainly is able to claim no moral victory whatsoever.

To people defending Silk Road:

Do you really put things in your body that you have no idea where they came from? Aren't you worried about hot shots? I know they have a rating system, but is it worth trusting with your life? They are after all, DRUG DEALERS. They are not doctors or even trained chemists. If you're going to buy potent substances like that, don't you think you ought to at least know where and how they live? Bitcoin is creating some crazy notions about how society should be and Silk Road is one of the most insane. Is that all we have here anymore is scammers, drug dealers, and one real actual chick?

I honestly feel that the rise of silk road was a sign of bitcoins success.  If people/addicts were willing to trade btc for their high of choice, it is a sign that bitcoin works as a currency.  Even if the seller then converted to USD, bitcoin filled one of its primary purposes.  It was used as a cheap, decentralized means of exchange out of the control of a government or financial entity.  Hopefully in the future, we can reach a point where there is some stability in the price of bitcoin vs major fiat currencies, and people will feel more comfortable storing value as bitcoins just like they do with any other store of value (precious metals, currencies, equities).

I take your point - but in my opinion there wouldn't be a need for the Silk Roads of this world if national government (and the people also) had a more practical attitude towards drugs.
   The Silk Road enabled the safe sale of drugs on the basis of established trust. As daft as it might sound, maybe government has a lesson to learn here.

    But Silk Road aside, I do agree with the gist of your post. There seems to be a good portion here that view BTC merely as a means of abdicating their responsibility towards the community of which they are members. For others its just a get rich quick scheme.

   BTC will be of benefit to many different factions of society - and in different ways. But for me, it offers the greatest potential benefit to those that are currently financially disenfranchised 
     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_is_Nobody

It is a market. There will be good and bad actors in any market. The bad actors get all the attention.

I hear you bro. Crime and get-rich-quick speculation have certainly changed the mentality here. You used to get some cred for starting a new project. Now you get trolled; and success is only measured in how many BTCs you can convert to fiat. The extreme greed shown here is proof that bitcoin has become money.   

Many of us jumped into Bitcoin for ideological reasons that aligned with the Genesis Block message regarding central banks and quantitative easing. Some of us also blame this unrestricted printing as part of a shadow government that plans wars using central banks to fund them. They go to war, blackout the media, then tell us to forget about it and go shopping. Some of us abhor unnecessary violence and want to stop using the product created by these banking cartels. If only we could go back to the days when money was backed by precious metals.  For many, Bitcoin could help create a beautiful society.

But there was a snake in the garden. Silk Road created a black market that allowed criminals to become parasites to the Bitcoin development community. The bad press and negative impact of this crime wave hindered Bitcoin adoption. It wan't until Silk Road was closed down that Bitcoin adoption began to take hold and investment grew.

It is a mark of human nature that new technologies are always weaponized before they are developed for beneficial tools. Metal was forged into swords before plows. Volatile substances were used to make bombs for centuries before generating steam power. Technology scares people. Now we have stealth address technology that will make creating black markets easy. They think that using normal distribution channels is unfair because there are restrictions and costs they feel should not apply to them. They think they are solving a social problem by treating a symptom instead of the organism. They could accomplish the same thing by re-inventing the distribution system rather than weaponizing it. But they are driven by fear. It will take grown-ups to create real tools that provide transparency instead of making it easier for nefarious groups to flourish. They say that if you live long enough you become your own enemy. We are seeing this happening. Let's hope the black hat secret squirrel group doesn't destroy the infant Bitcoin project before it leaves the cradle.