Topic: selling drugs and money laundering: the potential downfall of bitcoin - page 2. (Read 29964 times)

ok, Something I want to clarify.

I wasn't suggestion the bitcoin network should be policed. I was suggesting THIS FORUM should be moderated more strictly. This is naturally the first place new merchants come when they learn about bitcoin and they want to know more. If the owner of 'grandma's home made cookies' comes here and sees a thread titled "Buy your LSD here, Anarchy, Death to the government" they are going to go running for the hills, and merchants are what give the bitcoins used for your drug money most of its value. Start a site called LSD4BTC.com forums and advertise there to your hearts content for all I care.

It seems to me that using drug dealing and other illegal markets as a taking off point for bitcoin is incredibly short sighted. It may work for a while up until the bitcoin network gets branded as a haven for illegal activity. Even if that doesn't trigger a crackdown, the negative perception will keep legitimate businesses from entering. Personally, I support a policy of no illegal activity on the main bitcoin forums and wiki. It would also be wise to keep talk of using bitcoins to overthrow the government to a minimum.

Ok,  I guess the best thing to do is show the group thought is a basic Q&A to show Societal behavior.

Assuming your in the U.S.;

Are you a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or Other?

Then I will ask you several individual questions about specific platforms. You know what I will find. I will find that individually people will have very separate ideas and thoughts on platforms but will back wholly their party by a statistically wide margin. Proof will be past election results, even though the platforms might differ from their own. They will choose based on perceptions of the whole that is with them.

Pro-Life? or Pro-Choice?

Fiscally Conservative? or Liberal?

Religious, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Climate change? or Hoax?

Evolution? or Intelligent Design?

Iraq yes? or no?

Gitmo open? or Closed?   <-- This will get most.

Gitmo detainees civil prosecution?  or  Military Prosecution?   <--- And yet another nail.

For Sharia Law?  or  Against Sharia Law?

Drill baby drill?  or  Solar Baby, Solar?

Point being is from all these "individual" points of view a "group" will form and lead the individuals, even on things that "individually" they might disagree with.


You yell individually, but put yourself in a group.  Kazinsky was an individual, and fell out of societal norms.


And we typically don't "throw out" the lessor. They just don't get their views as a mainstream idea, but the closer you are to the whole, the more your ideas are taken seriously. Groups within groups within groups all the way down to the individual.

Why do you think politicians take platforms based on what gets them the largest group of individuals even though their personal behavior shows their positions don't follow the platform. Basically, say what others believe the most, not what you individually believe.

Although thankfully that seems to be changing.

Exactly. This is the "myth of society". Concepts representing groups of individuals (one of which is society) do not act, or feel, or want, or need. These concepts only make sense in the context of individuals.

Um.... no.  Individuals make judgements, and sometimes groups, but entire societies never do anything besides disagree with one another.  You can't throw out a large segment of people simply because they disagree with a slightly larger segment, or a smaller, more vocal segment.

No, no, I don't "individually" claim this. Nor would I.  Society(groups) makes its judgements on activities. Our society says Skydiving is non-essential, but I am sure you can find people who think it is essential. That is not the point.  Society makes judgements as a whole, not segments of it, or individuals.

And if it is essential to them, go skydiving. But that won't change Societies thoughts because of the individuals thoughts.

What's "essential" for each individual depends on their subjective viewpoint.  Maybe skydiving gives some people great fulfillment in live, maybe they could not be happy without skydiving. How do you know?

It is very arrogant dictating to others what you think is "essential" to them.



PS. The societal benefits of a car driving majority are outweighed by the societal ill effects, but that's a whole different topic...

What do the farmers work 24/7/365? LSD wont even continue to get you high if you take it more than twice a week, it builds a very strong short lasting tolerance. Twice a week is the most you are going to use LSD and get much effect from it, and even this is considered an extremely large amount of use. Most people who are 'users' of LSD (rather than people who just try it a few times in their life) take it once a month or so. More heavy users take it maybe once a week. Only the most heavy users of LSD take it twice a week.

So if the farmers take the weekends off....and the LSD users are the most heavy users in the world......I would say they will get the same amount of work done! On the weekend maybe the farmers listen to music and hang out with friends. On the weekend the LSD users take LSD and listen to music and hang out with friends. They get the same amount of work done, but the LSD users will enjoy the music more =).

Also testing for LSD use is not very feasible considering it requires sophisticated urine or blood analysis and all traces of use are 100% removed from the body in 24 hours or less.

Not a bad idea but it is way over kill. LSD is an aplifier. It will amplify what you feel. If you take it in a good set and setting, chances of a bad trip are very slim. If you keep some benzodiazapines on hand you can terminate the mental aspect of the trip if you start to feel uncomfortable, or you could keep an antipsychotic on hand to terminate the entire trip. Trip sitters are a good idea, but you really do not need to be under medical supervision to take LSD. It is highly safe, the worst that will happen is a bad trip (very rare) that taking a small dose of xanax will terminate.

You equate Poor with Hunger. Not necessarily but I see where you are coming from. In the U.S. if a child knows hunger, he/she has idiots for guardians. Even forgoing what the Government would give you, we have enough food resources to feed the basic needs of a family. Yeah, they might not like eating squirrel compared to Big Macs, or Kudzu instead of lettuce, or naturally found plants, vegetables, and animals that abound everywhere. I bet even New Yorkers could eat pigeons for a long time.

As far as other countries in Arid conditions, you make a case for immigration. People who live in a desert shouldn't expect an abundance of food.

I do fear though that with the population and its growth, hunger will spread. Those who can do for themselves will be way better off.


I do kind of feel a loss of patriotism, but more importantly a vision for the future. We are meandering without a cause. Great leaders give us a noble cause. Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc... to name the very few. Something that a national unity can get behind and work towards.

"In my world Governments are there to counter act the necessity of capitalism"
It's government favors that enable corporate tyranny.

"Governments can put money where no company or individual would. Cheap energy that no company would invest in because there is no profit"
If there's no profit, doesn't that make it expensive? If it was cheaper, the private sector would do it. Government robbing the private sector to "invest" money for us is only counter productive. The free market is best at allocating capital; the government throws money down the sink hole, making us all poorer.

"But Governments can force Corporations to adapt or die."
Governments have a really good track record of doing the opposite. Granting de-facto monopolies and making laws which create barriers to entry and favor specific industries (lobbyists). What will force corporations to "adapt or die" is competing in a free market.

As can the justification for the laws.


Oh, bullshit. A poor child knows he is hungry while others are not. That others have more than him. Perhaps you have a point in that it is taught that this state of "poor" is bad, but I think it's pretty obvious myself.


Wait. You live in the United States and think our problem is a lack of patriotism? *mind blown*

You need weights to build muscle? No, you could do push ups or sit ups! Why don't you build muscle by yourself? Do you need a hammer to pound a small nail into a wall? No, you could probably push it in. Do you need a vagina to orgasm? No you could just use your hands. Good for you if you are able to be introspective and philosophize by yourself. So am I! But I still use tools to help me. I am able to enjoy music by myself. But LSD and other drugs still make it sound much better. I am able to appreciate art by myself. Psychedelics still make it look better. I am even able to enjoy the world all by myself, but I still enjoy seeing things in super high definition every now and then. That is my favorite effect of LSD actually, the incredibly heightened senses. You wont even know what I am talking about unless you try it though. I compare it to the difference between standard definition television and high definition though. Everything in focus at once, everything super sharp, the finest details sticking out, the slightest difference in color between the smallest part of an object. Simply amazing! I actually can't do that by myself ;-).



Of course you should be fully responsible. Also I would argue that all drugs are neutral considering they are inert powders. On the other hand, some drugs are also more prone to cause negative effects if they are over used. It is very very rare for a single use of any recreational drug to cause any significant long term effects, if used in proper dose and the purity is high.


I actually am not paranoid at all. It is nice to see that you believe the stereotypical image created by the propaganda masters, further showing that your opinions on drug use are not your own but have actually been implanted in your brain via corporate sponsored psychological operations.


I plan to ! I also do color you stupid because you obviously talk about things you know nothing about just like a good useful idiot. How about you actually read about drugs from non-biased source of information? You have clearly obtained the majority of your drug knowledge from the government or the mainstream media or one of their various fronts.
 

Dependence means that you come to rely on object A for effect B. Many drugs can be dependence forming, just like anything else can be. Some drugs are more dependence forming than others. You may become physically dependent on heroin to prevent getting sick. Object heroin is required (depended upon) to prevent sickness (effect B). Soft drugs have less severe dependence related issues. You may become dependent on marijuana to be entertained. With out marijuana (object A) you feel bored (effect B), therefor you require (are dependent on) marijuana to be entertained. Not many people become dependent on soft drugs unless they have no other mechanism to achieve the desired effect to begin with. Also, many soft drugs, like all of the psychedelics save for maybe ketamine, cause dependency in only exceptionally rare cases. Usually psychedelics are 'enhancers' rather than 'replacers'.

No, drug use will not likely destroy you if you are responsible. Prohibition will destroy you. The government will destroy you for using drugs. Please stop spewing your hyperbole bullshit lest I mistake you for a government sockpuppet instead of a confused fool: www.motherboard.tv/2011/2/19/ones-zeros-021811-the-government-s-sockpuppet-army--2


Smoking weed on a regular basis is not likely to have any serious negative effect on you, although it will minorly increase your risk of lung cancer and could act as a trigger for latent mental illness in less than 1% of the population (although this is still debated).


LSD was not created by the government it was created by Albert Hofmann. LSD was outlawed in the 60's following the psychedelic revolution as a way to combat the hippie movement, which was actually quite counter cultural and anti-establishment. The paranoid CIA did not start to experiment with LSD for mind control until some time later. If you ever use LSD you will see that it is actually not effective at all at mind control but rather at freeing your mind from the information prison you are contained in.  The CIA had far more luck with MDMA as a truth serum because on MDMA you feel like everyone is your best friend in the whole world, including the nice CIA man who jammed it into you with a dart.


I am fully against all taxation as it is theft.


I am against taxation and against prohibition. I do agree with you, no taxation no prohibition. I am merely trying to enlighten you as it is painfully obvious that your mind has been poisoned with lies, and you are missing out on a life enhancing drug. If your eyes were sewn shut I would tell you as well, so you don't miss out on seeing.

This sounds familiar... Nanaimo?

As cited earlier, the drug law isn't racist, the application of the law can be.

Neither is the choice to use drugs. I am not afraid to subscribe specific attributes to blacks. However, having worked in Africa, I wouldn't subscribe drug use to poor "Blacks", I would sub-scribe the use to American Poor Blacks. There are lots of poor black people, and I don't believe it is their race that makes them choose to use. But there is some correlation between drug use and poor black americans.

I know what I believe it is. But most won't agree. It is the culture of entitlement. But I don't limit that to any particular race.

I will agree that sometimes problems are attributed to drugs without proper evidence. Just because it is easier to blame drugs than find and solve the real problem.

Despair is a hard problem to counteract with laws. Funny thing is that despair is taught through entitlements. Have and Have Nots.

No child knows he is poor until he is taught he is poor. Rather than teach the status, teach the methods to change status.

Poor and Rich as defined by me do not include a Net Worth Spreadsheet.  Just so long as we can teach people to be on the positive side of of Debt rather than the negative, happiness will ensue and family will matter more.

We have a cultural problem in the U.S., the problem is that we lost our culture. We lost our patriotism, our nationalism.

From his Wikipedia page:
And so he continued to exploit others and build his fortune.

How many drug users have you met that do nothing but use drugs? I'll bet that number is eclipsed by the number of people you've met that are drug users, yet you have no idea. What is an "LSD taking groupie" (do you mean hippie?) to you? Someone that is tripping 24/7? Sorry, but that's not reality.


If you study the history of drug laws in the United States, you will notice quite a racist pattern.

Natural Laws as defined by me:

Physical Laws entitle all fundamentals of all entities. Natural Laws contain physical laws, but also contain Laws base on biological entities.

Basically, Physical Laws (forgoing Philosophical debate) would exist without biologicals. Natural Laws contain Physical Laws but with biological entities.

For example:

As in Physical Laws there is fundamentals. The basics, Natural Laws also have fundamentals.


1. You must eat to survive. Is a fundamental Natural Law.
2. To continue the species, reproduction must take place.

These laws must follow physical laws, entropy, thermodynamics, etc...

There are 4 fundamental forces in the physical known: Weak, Strong, EM, and Gravity.

There are 2 in the Biological; Eat, and Propagate.

Survival of the Fittest, etc....

Instincts have been forgot because of good times. When, even Humans, are put back into the wild. We will revert to the "wolves".  One countries Devil is another's Hero.

The abstract or construct is a form of intelligent biological but must still adhere to all previous laws.

When arguing over say: Population, many bring in an abstract thought into the debate without observing Natural Laws. Entropy is at work. Eating is nothing but energy conversion. When there is not enough energy to support a system, something must give.

But this also suffices:

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore is universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right

There is a reason society punishes murders, but there are no murders in the animal world. Murder is a construct of abstract thought for the benefit of society. Society can be construed to mean any group. Groups form to protect itself from the strong, and take the benefit of mutual cooperation.

I would suggest a test to show which group Nature favors.  A group of hard working farmers, and a group of LSD taking groupies. Give them exactly the same amount of land and starting implements.

My prediction is the same as what would happen if you let your pet dog back into the wild. It will quickly convert back to fundamental rules or die. It will go back to the wolf. The LSD group will become farmers, or die. Now, I imposed no moral judgement on the LSD group, I just stated what would happen.

Morals however, do have a scientific basis for them in society. Although when formed they didn't call it science. When groups form, rules are developed for the benefit of the group as a whole. They are not necessarily static but a slowly changing dynamic based on the environment.

But no matter how high one climbs in the "group" or "society" the fundamentals must be adhered to or else.

I think recently the Pyramid upon which our society has been built is unbalanced as the base has been eroded. The higher levels of the pyramid must fall to form a new base upon which to build.

Now back to the topic. Drugs and Laundering. With out moral judgement, there will be two ends to this debate.

If you go off to the woods and live a truly individual self sufficient lifestyle. I guarantee you, no one would care what you do. Take all the drugs you want, jump up and down and condemn the world, no one would care. But now that you want to enter a group but bring your values into the group problems arise.

BTW: I have been to Amsterdam, legal drug use is not what it is cracked up to be. The laws are becoming more and more restrictive because of problems. Not to mention, the drug zone is not exactly the best place to be for a vacation.

I am for decentralized power of government. This is what I liked about the U.S. when the balance was between the States and the Fed. California could pass its laws, others could see the outcome and whether it was beneficial or not. Just so, other states and citizens don't pay for their mistakes. And vice versa of course.

What the hell are you talking about? First, what "power" does Jobs have? Second, how do you get that an LSD trip helped him gain that "power"?

By his own admission, an LSD trip did help Steve Jobs get so much power.