Bitcoin Forum

Well its services like 'silk road', and the inevitable money laundering schemes that will eventually catch the eye of the powers that be and compel them to declare the bitcoin network illegal. If we don't moderate and police our own network it will all disappear in smoke, and the profits of everyone involved along with it. Blatantly illegal activity going on will make bitcoin go the way of napster.

Napster is a poor example. A better example is BitTorrent which isn't going anywhere even though my gut feeling tells me that most torrent traffic is some form of copyright infringement.

Weren't there about 15 or 20 other threads about this, saying the same thing, and all the others from new users as well?

Yeah, we should totally ban them, this is illegal! >:(

Seriously, it has to start there. They need something like Bitcoin. If you want to decrease their influence on the currency, get legitimate businesses to accept Bitcoin now.

I am very fine with demand, no matter where it comes from. If Bitcoin catches on in this field, it will be a success.

Pecunia non olet.

The difference is, you can't bitorrent goods and services like you can with bitcoin. If you could use bitorrent to dowload drugs, you could bet on the government taking a more active roll in shutting it down.

Or better yet, don't use their services. If they don't make money they will go away.

They have the same problem with real cash, I would bet they will put more effort into that rather than dive into our 5 million dollar economy.

I don't know about that. The RIAA, MPAA and rest of the pro-IP crowd probably have more lobbyists and therefore more political influence than the anti-drug crowd.

The difference is you can’t shut down Bitcoin. If it really gathers so much interest in the black market, demand will shoot up and wouldn’t decrease despite whatever the government is trying to do.

There is demand for illegal goods and Bitcoin provides a way to fulfill it. You can do nothing to stop this.

Bitcoin could actually solve a lot of problems for "illegal drug" distribution networks. Once there are a sufficient number of exchangers in operation, you can be sure that they will follow. If they're really smart and forward-looking, they might set up legitimate exchangers themselves.

Lets be honest, were all waiting for bitcoin to get on the 10-o-clock news or oprah to find out about it. When that time comes we want to look like a well organized autonomous group that's fit for legal and fair commerce, not a dark black market. We want more people to see the bitcoin network to improve the value of our bitcoins. Drugs and money laundering are the kinds of things that should try to avoid attention.

I agree it's not a good selling point for the general public but I disagree that it's going to be the downfall of Bitcoin.

The government can and will go after criminals by attacking their money.  Who knows, they might require bitcoin exchangers and other law-abiding bitcoin-friendly businesses to ban certain coins.

IMO, the only way bitcoin will remain a viable currency is to demonstrate over time that the vast majority of bitcoin users are law-abiding.  I do not want to see such a wonderful invention destroyed by the likes of Silk Road.  Bitcoin is truly unique, in its infancy, and an experiment that could fail for any number of reasons.

Associating bitcoin with criminality in the public mind is a sure path to quick failure and marginalization.

+1

Come what may, this is a panacea for Bitcoin.

(However, I think it's pretty obvious that rumours of Bitcoin's illegalization would cause its value to crash and - if the rumours turned out to be true - perhaps never recover.)

I agree but its hard to get legitimate businesses to accept bitcoins if when they check it out they see people selling illegal goods a services. All I'm saying is this is the forum where everyone comes to find out where bitcoins are accepted so if the moderators would simply delete posts where people are offering illegal goods, those services would be much harder to find, the moderators of this forum would be less likely to get in trouble, and the network as a whole would be more likely to thrive in the long run.

Furthermore, I think the critique on this page (http://www.erowid.org/donations/donations_bitcoin.php) ought to be heeded.  Even the druggies have reason to question our legitimacy.   :P

We have an uphill battle.  I'm personally in favour of keeping the official forum on a tighter leash, but I'm not sure which is the primary thread on which this matter has been debated.  Decentralized as we are, I think we still really need our moderators to take charge and make some definitive pronouncements on matters like this.  Perhaps we even need an election for a moderation chairman.

I disagree. Getting bitcoin widely used by people for drugs is a quick path to success. Anyone who wants to sell things to drug users will accept coins for simplicity, and other businesses will follow.

edit.

I'm not debating if drugs should be illegal or not. I think people should be able to ingest anything they want. Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be illegal, it is illegal. The government you want to over throw could buy all 5 million bitcoins in existence without batting an eye, instantly destroying the network. Don't tempt them. If you want this to succeed you have to make it something the powerful people want a piece of, not something they want to crush.

Wow, they can buy all my bitcoins! Oh noes! (Btw, profit. if government wanted to by my bitcoins, I'll sell 'em for a lot more than they are worth.) (And then I'll just be over there starting a new blockchain...)

Also, you talk about policing and monitoring the network. At bitcoin.org you might get the admins to agree with you (apparently so, as it's now not allowed to advertise illegal stuff in the marketplace). But how are you going to shut down Silkroad? Or any of the various other sites that will pop up. Will you boycott an exchange that is known to be used by these illegal sites?

I would agree with that as long as I don't pay for their stupidity.  If someone wants to drink acid, go for it. Just don't let public money or systems pay for their health care.

Basically, the best strategy is not so much to ban stuff, but to flood the forum with legit stuff that it become politically impossible to shut down.

This is what people called "kitty activism".

I think many here would agree that the drug prohibition AND the public health care system need to go.

I Australia, the government steals our money, takes a huge cut and then rations it back out to us in the form of health care. Then taxes the shit out of cigarettes (500%) because smokers are a drain on the health care system and smoking is "bad" (similar for alcohol). I didn't ask for you health care, your moral righteousness or your taxes. Fucking government!

/rant

Illegal goods and services are the best use for Bitcoins at the moment. All the legal things one could buy with Bitcoins can already be easily bought with credit cards and cash.

Hi everyone, first post, just one of the many recent interested folks that have been lurking these forums. Really interesting community,  please don't dismiss this as a troll post because I totally believe in what you're doing and appreciate all the work you've put in. I'm not normally this aggro but someone's got to stand up for reason:)

This silk road thing is quite the debate around here.

Y'all need to get over it. From the discussions I've seen on the chans, slashdot, reddit and other public forums you're basically considered to be a collection of ultra-libertarian weirdos so ensconced in your own software-driven utopian scenarios that you're about as far removed from the prevailing public narrative as transhumanists and furries are. As in, nobody gives a toss about what you're doing even if they understand it, which the few who have heard of it probably don't. I'm not saying people are stupid (also apparently a forum paradigm that should be the subject of another rant) but bitcoin is obscure, requires more than a little bit of reading to understand and bitcoin.org isn't the place to learn about what's going on. Silk Road and other drug vendors in onionland are the place.

Drug markets give people an incentive to learn about this stuff. Legit e-merchants buy drugs too, more than a few will be swayed by the experience into adopting bitcoin.
The TOTAL bitcoin market is so small nobody in the government with the authority to do so is going to buy up all your coins - Silk Road has fewer than 1,000 members and a couple dozen vendors. At this point the DEA agent who proposes this at opsec is going to be laughed out of the room.

"We're not spending $5,000,000 to buy bunch of imaginary internet money to prevent people from buying cannabis, adderall and unscheduled chemical compounds. We're transferring you to the Mexico office instead."

Also, they may well be sinister operators but the government isn't stupid. If they did this buyout today (or another more sophisticated attack on the network) they'd have to go all black-ops and that's complicated. They can't even keep their black-hood torture centers secret. If they start publicly attacking bitcoin in any serious way you're going to see the entire internet jump up for your defense, and if the government wants it speculators of all kinds will want it too.

Take heart. I realize Tor is a different animal because it's had the strong support of the US government from it's inception, but look at the strength of the network now. The entire domain of hidden services is pretty much devoted to the most reviled forms of pornography and yet they're still there and stronger than ever. They're fighting a much more intense battle with public opinion than you ever will - if this thing survives it'll be because people can actually use it for their legit online dealings, not because parts of the early-adopter community were shunned. If anything the government will eventually find a use for bitcoin that, like Tor, undermines foreign governments that threaten their economic strength. What form this will take may never be known (I mean, what are all those Tor exit nodes in Virginia for? We'll probably never know) but it's assured that when Bitcoin markets start popping up in China and Pakistan a good chunk of their trade will be funneling money to low-level people who aren't worth the time for the secure parallel banking channels spooks use.

Someone bought this, after all: http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000022043f9ea2c298f3381c6ddd86b968271117dd55cb48ac297954c

Ok, /rant.

All that said, I think it's really good that there's a discussion of what should tolerated and what the banhammer should come down on in here. If anything a few folks who are curious about this sketchy bitcoin thing are going to come here, see these discussions and make up their own minds about consequences of being associated with this community, and I think it's easy for the average user to react favorably to soul-searching like this.

Emphasis added.  

Food for thought:
How do we know this is not the exact intent of Bitcoin.  The questions are: Who is the target and who is the creator?

bitcoin is completely anonymous. All they would have to do is download the bitcoin wallet, hop on Mt. Gox, and offer $1 dollar per bitcoin. Everyone would sell to them. The people that wouldnt would either hold on to the bitcoins so they aren't in circulation or trade them with people that then would sell them. And theres no way of telling if its the government buying them or some schmuck millionaire in utah.

Markets like Silk Road cannot exist without law abiding Bitcoin users. Without them, there's no cover and exchangers would be accessories. Just an observation.

I'm okay with the likes of Silk Road sharing their announcing themselves in the Marketplace as long as they don't do any soliciting. I think that rule should apply to all vendors.

They might be able to buy some coins at $1/ea, but the price would quickly climb above that, once people realize there was a large buyer buying without regard to cost.

Which would create another gold rush as mining has just become even more valuable. Driving up demand is probably the worst way to shut down a market since it only encourages new suppliers to enter the market.

If they bought all the coins one day then stopped buying them the next there would be none in circulation in the economy. we would be back to day one accept it would be a lot harder to get people to accept bitcoins after a giant crash like that.

Don't moderate the market. Moderate the government to legalize these things.
It's as simple as that.

The wonderful thing about a p2p project such as Bitcoin is: If you want something to get done, you don't lobby a central authority in the hope that they will listen, instead you just get straight to work and do it yourself.

So go ahead, police away!

And when you're done with the policing come back and tell us how it went. I'll be very curious to learn about your effective strategy of ostracising Silk Road from the Bitcoin network.  I certainly can't think of any myself.


Blatantly illegal activity also goes on with cash, and on mobile phone networks, and on bittorrent. Can't remember most governments trying to ban those.  (nb. bittorrent has never been explicitly banned as a technology, it's only illegal to use it in certain ways).

Also, didn't napster rely on a centralised server?  

Yes -- and a great many Internet forums make efforts to avoid discussion and encouragement of illegal activity.

Most likely they will find some kind of useful idiot to buy something illegal with bitcoin as a false flag.

It's what they do. Highly effective plan is highly effective.

 :)

Not to speak for Satoshi, but Bitcoin was created with the intention of undermining the State's hold on money. Is there any reason to believe the the State does a better job creating law than it does money?

The State is a collection of men, just like any other.  Anarchy doesn't work.

Very bold claim. Care to back it up?

If not anarchy, what do you call the interaction between states?

the law of the jungle ?    ;D

OMG, this has been discussed soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many times.

It is absolutely impossible to "buy all the coins". Nobody can force anybody to sell even at the HIGHEST price.
The human greed factor comes into play here.

Right now, If somebody announced "hey, we're buying BTC for 100 dollars each !!", there would be a lot of people who would still hoard the BTC because they would think that the price will rise even more.

Satoshi was the creator. The world was the target.

I think food for thought is better served by the question, "when will the government co-opt bitcoin and start running the majority of the servers to keep better track of it?"



Not necessarily. If it's good enough for the world at large to use, it's definitely good enough for the underground black economy to use. The black market is outrageously complex, extremely concerned with security and trust issues, ever-changing, highly competitive and regulated by simple supply and demand market conditions bankers can only fervently dream of. Silk road is just the tiniest exposed sliver of the worldwide drug market and there are still plenty of btc/btc opportunities to be found.

I think it's quite likely if for some reason it doesn't take off with the majority of the public it will still be used by the black market.

Money exchangers will be happy to play along - right hand on the table doodling in the ledger book, left hand under the table making trades. As it once was so shall it always be.

I second this sentiment. Bitcoin is perfect for the black market.

Im sure no one wants to meet some random psycho in a dark alley to exchange bitcoins. I can just see the headline "Person killed after meeting a randomn stranger to exchange internet money"

I have an idea for something that would let people meet more safely to exchange bitcoins in person.

Would that be a popular thing ? I need to write up a proposal for it soon .


If the main way to get bitcoins is in person or cash transactions the actual physical meeting becomes a weak point that can be exploited.

So, drug dealers are usually homicidal maniacs? Where do get your drugs?

Drug dealers aren't the issue it's craigslist serial killers I'm scared  of :)-

And agents sniffing out two individuals completing a transaction they have interest in.
 

Dumb Drug dealers are homicidal maniacs, would be a better statement.

Loan Sharks learned a long time ago, you don't get any money from dead people.

This is true. They usually don't like attracting attention by crapping in their own backyard

Brainwashed by government propaganda much? The overwhelming majority of drugs are tools to explore your mind. The second largest group are drugs to have fun that cause little to no negative effects and can also be used to get over problems like PTSD. Then there are also drugs to help you study and drugs to kill pain. Only a small number of illegal drugs cause significant negative effects and these drugs tend to only do so if used in large amounts over a significant period of time. I smoked crack once in my life. Didn't care for it, but it caused me no harm at all. I havn't tried heroin and don't plan to, but I am sure I could try it once. I tried meth a few times even, and then decided to stop. Although I do use some amphetamine very rarely to study. I am not a fan of hard drugs though and these days I only use tons of LSD. I have used LSD several hundred times and have never had a flashback or a bad trip, although I have had several amazing positive life changing experiences! Amazing that I have used oodles of softdrugs and even tried hard drugs a few times and I am perfectly healthy and I don't cost you any money or cause any problems! But I still have the fucking fascist police thugs to worry about throwing me in prison so they can use your stolen tax dollars to pay the private prison industry and benefit all the other corporations that benefit from this war.

Automatically assuming that using drugs = stupidity only shows that you are stupid. You automatically refuse to use any of these tools to expand your mind simply because you have been indoctrinated by government-coporate propaganda into thinking badly about them.

People who don't try drugs are really missing out, particularly psychedelics. It is like you are blind and so afraid of opening your eyes because you are told that it is so bad to see. But once you open your eyes there is no turning back =). Anymore than you would pluck your eyes out from your head. And the risks are so low. LSD is one of the safest drugs on earth!

Can I have your attention please?

This forum is called "Marketplace". There exist multiple discussion forums more suitable for the topic at hand, especially: Bitcoin Discussion; Economics; Trading Discussion.

Edit: thanks for moving.

You need "help" to be introspective and philosophical, rather than just being able to do it yourself.

But assume you get some "bad" drugs and need hospital attention. Who should pay for your bill?  I think you should be wholly responsible. You apparently hate tax dollars, so you wouldn't take any of that money would you?




Yea, better get another dose, we are coming, we are coming. We are going to get you. We are watching.

Color me stupid then, and like another stamp. For all I care, you can take all the LSD you want.
 
Irregardless of the "drug", nature seems to deal with excessive use or chemical addictive behavior in simple ways. It will destroy you.

Now I am not saying taking a hit of MJ every-once in awhile will kill you, it is when a drug consumes you. When it changes your natural instincts for survival, you are on a road of destruction.

And for someone that hates the Government and its Machine so much; Why LSD, a "Government created drug", to "control" you.
Wouldn't you be better off taking "shrooms" from cow shit.

And BTW can you read:  Do you think "tax" money should pay for people that take "drugs" so much and to a degree that they need to use "public" money?

You seem to be in a kind of Catch-22 here;

If you say yes, you defeat your own argument.

If you say no, you agree with me, and you counter statement makes no sense.

Maybe, you should take another hit, and figure it out.

From the Wikipedia: "LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives." The CIA didn't get involved until the fifties. Sandoz Industries was a private company which we now call Novartis.

One doesn't need manure to grow p. cubensis mushrooms.

Just trying to clear up some FUD.

I will argue that if (or when?) governments co-opt bitcoin and run the majority of servers, that this is a clear unambiguous sign of complete success of the project. You want to see how the government is managing your money? Check blockexplorer.us. Don't believe them? Check blockexplorer.cn.

Dude,

Your a downer.

And 2 apples plus 2 apples doesn't equal four apples it equals approximately four apples.

;)

Not sure I understand where you're going here.

Just that I didn't over analyze my comments and relied on intent rather than specifics. But someone pointing out specific can be a downer.

Like the 2+2=4 example. The intent is obvious but to be specific, there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in the real world only in the abstract world.

i.e. 2 apples plus 2 apples approximately = 4 apples because no 2 apples are the same.

No, 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. One the left side "an apple" is a discrete unit of measurement, so on the right side it must be too. Otherwise, you can't say "2 apples", you must say "approximately 2 apples", by your logic.

From what I can tell, your "point" is that tax money should not be used to pay for medical treatment necessary due to drug use. What about any other risky, non-essential activity, say driving a car or skydiving?

I see. I think it's important though not to purport untruths about drugs. People can get hurt that way.

No two apples are the same [.]

But you got my general twist. But I look at things not in a legal or non-legal way but a societal benefit type of way.  I understand it is not possible to draw a straight line that this activity is OK, and this activity isn't.

I am not a fan of public health care period.

Driving a car is an essential activity for the majority, and it provides a societal benefit.

Skydiving is not, if you hit the ground and fracture all your bones; pay for it.   If you survive.

Illicit Drugs are more complicated. I would agree on whole that MJ is less of a problem than Alcohol. I am not in favor of paying for their behaviors that lead to health problems with public money. Private Insurance, sure.

But crack can be shown as having a negative impact on society. And the same for many other drugs.

However, when it comes to impairment and work. The Employer rules. I wouldn't allow people to work in certain positions even with legal drugs and prescriptions.

My positions can be concluded upon based on simple Natural Laws. I am in favor of laws that most closely follow Natural Laws and conclusions from those Natural Laws. Ironically, this makes me both a Conservative and a Liberal on varying issues but its basis is in and from Natural Laws.

In my world the Government wouldn't provide any health care, but would fund research for health care. Groups and individuals would provide the financing for their health care.

You can't prevent people from doing harmful things to themselves, so the government shouldn't either. But the Government shouldn't subsidize that behavior either.

People seem to like the drugs that do 1 of 2 things the most. The drugs that "makes them feel good" and the drugs that "alter reality". Even provide "life changing" events.

Nature isn't so nice to those that go down that road. There are two worlds, the construct and reality. Many today can't tell the difference. That is bad for society.

Sure I would like the Star Trek world with peace on earth, no one hungers, no crime, no death penalties, etc...  It is a noble goal, but it is not reality, it is a dream. But if people want to get there, you must work with in reality.

In my world Governments are there to counter act the necessity of capitalism. Governments can put money where no company or individual would.  Cheap energy that no company would invest in because there is no profit.  Cheap communications, cheap alternative to medicine, etc...   Governments and Corporations should be "enemies".  But Governments can force Corporations to adapt or die.

I do know one thing, we don't get to this future by everyone taking LSD, MJ, Alcohol, etc....  But I understand that people will want to try.

LSD is not addictive and the altered mind caused by LSD is not necessarily bad. If you going to take the drug, it's probably best to be monitored by doctors and other professional that know how to deal with it if you have a bad episode.

Neither am I.


It's essential only because the State provides subsidized roads. Lacking "free" roadways, alternatives would be more heavily utilized. The dependence on automobiles is almost entirely a creation of the State.


First, there is no such thing as "public money", just "government money". The fact that the State takes my money from me using the threat of violence does not justify the persecution of individuals for ingesting certain chemicals.

Second, I would challenge you to name one aspect in which Cannabis is more harmful than Alcohol (other than its illegality, which is a problem created by the State, not the drug).


What is "society". How can a chemical ingested by an individual have a negative impact on "society"? You also draw no distinction between use and abuse. By definition, drug use is the cause of problems, not use alone. Certain drugs are more difficult (biologically) to use and not abuse, but that is very dependent on the individuals body and mind.


Sure. I support the right of property owners to do what they wish on their property. If they want to force you to piss in a cup every time you arrive for work, that's their prerogative, but I will not associate with such an individual.


Most drugs used today are natural, or synthesized from natural ones. If nature provides a chemical that alters my brain in a specific way, why should you have any say in the matter? That doesn't seem to follow from Natural Law. Perhaps if you explain your conception of a "natural law", this would make more sense.


I'll agree that those are the two primary reasons for using drugs. Entheogens (hallucinogens and other drugs used for mind-expanding purposes) can produce incredibly powerful sensations and changes in perception. In my opinion, nothing other than meditation can even come.


You misunderstand the nature of the State. It is not at odds with corporations, but their mother. It does not promote equality, but inequality. They do not promote the public good at the cost of the few, but the good of the few at the cost of the many.


I bet we'd get there a lot faster if people traded their Statism trip for an LSD one.

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

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"?

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.

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.

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

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.

This sounds familiar... Nanaimo?

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.

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*

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

I see your point. However, I am leery of moderation (censorship). Now if what you mean by moderation, is keeping conversations on track within individual threads, OK. Rather than LSD4BTC.com, move it to a LSD4BST Thread.

It is not productive to censor, but it is to keep communications on track within groups.

We all hate censorship but his point is really valid. Everyone I've talked to about Bitcoins that looked in to it brought up the drugs aspect.
Not saying we should get rid of it but it really hurts the image. I'm torn between both sides on this one.
I can see stores avoiding it for this reason.

I really wouldn't worry about stores or businesses. They are blind and only follow the sound of coins going cha-ching.  So many didn't think the internet was good business, but they came.

They will follow the Mob irrespective of what the Mob is doing. The drug thing will always be there and with time only be the same percentage as in IRL. It can be no other way.

Plus once the Stores, realize some of the "TAX" benefits of BitCoin, it will out way the Bad.

IMO, the whole key to a monetary system (BitCoin) isn't the Money, it is the Resources that the money can buy. BitCoin needs resources. Unfortunately, Drugs seems to be one of those resources.

When you say "Tax benefits" you mean as in not paying tax or something else? I imagine most business will pay tax on btc like they pay tax on cash.

grudgingly and on about 10% of the actual amount?

Yes, they will but since they can change their Public Key for transactions, they will be able to do what many waiters and waitresses do. If they make a $100.00 Tip on a $300 meal, most must pay 7%. So they don't report the $100, they report $21. Which gives them $79 tax free.

You just split the Tip, $21 to the official Public Key, and $79 to the unofficial Public Key.

It's going to depend on the business of course. I imagine some pay 100% of what they're supposed to and others as close to 0% as possible.

I'm just saying I'd assume btc taxes will be paid the same as people do with cash. If you didn't pay on cash you're not going to start with btc or the other way around.
Also it's going to depend on the country. Where I'm at we have government serialized receipts. That's a different story. If I give one of those for credit / cash / check / btc whatever I'm paying taxes on it.

People can easily do this with BTC, just as easily one does it with Cash. Because you are only dealing with 2 parties.

Many private car sales, put $1 for the car transaction for tax reasons. But they actually paid, $1000 for the car.  Especially since it was an AS-IS sale anyway, their is no recourse for an unhappy party in the transaction. So, why not?

I agree 100%. I'm just saying some people (not most) follow the law to the letter and declare it all.
My whole point is it will be the same people that declare $1 on the car with cash that do it with BTC.
Basically with cash / btc it's your decision if you're going to pay the tax or not.
That is of course assuming your country doesn't have a better way to enforce it.

When the government wants to get in between 2 individuals conducting a trade, it is time to move.  They should stick with large volume trades and ignore individual trades.

These issues only really crop up when the people are being overtaxed and the government is being overly aggressive in collections.
It should be a warning to the Government and the People that we are not in Kansas anymore. There is a tipping point when people will flee from the traditional methods of Government tracking and start truly private ones.

I already know people that have diversified their wealth, out of the banking system. I can trade locally with Gold and Silver for big ticket items. I even know of some small ma and pop stores that will do it.

Drugs and money-laundering is the least of the Governments problems. Maintaining the value of the dollar while avoiding a financial breakdown is more important. Heck, they might even want a loan from the money launders or give them a better rate by running it through treasuries.  Sort of an Amnesty for launders if they get to hold onto the money for 10 years.  ;D

They probably won't pay tax on BTC until they convert it to cash. This really does underscore the problems with the tax system in the US though. You pay income tax AND sales tax.  They get you twice for every transaction.  One or the other if you ask me.  As it stands today, a business could not survive [or even start] if it involved only bitcoins, it must use the fiat currency to actually do business.  If bitcoin gets large enough, that could change, but at the same time, governments will come up with novel ways of getting their cut.

Here in Japan I pay taxes on bitcoin income based on the equivalent JPY value at date of sale.

I then pay taxes or deduct taxes when converting BTC to JPY if the price is different from the bitcoin price when the order happened (if I get more money, I pay taxes on the extra income. If I get less money, I can deduct this from paid taxes).

In the U.S. there is the concept of a hobby tax.  So, if you don't make a profit after expenses on your hobby, then you don't pay income tax.  So, if you invest in hardware to mine, you have to make that money back.  It gets a little tricky if it is dual use [i.e. you use the hardware for other things ... like I do with my primary workstation, but just keep accurate records .. i.e. the card you had may have done what you need to do just fine, so the new card was purchased at a higher price to mine, then you could claim the difference in worth of the two cards at the time of purchase as the investment].  Also, keep track of electricity costs.  Again, I always leave my machines running 24/7 with hard drive platters spinning, so I have to be careful that I count only the electricity spent by the mining process [GPU and fans ... I have to set my case fans to high where before they were low].  That would be your costs.  So, money deposited into your account minus investment and costs to operate would be the taxable income for a hobby [and for most people, that is all that can be claimed of Bitcoin right now since it is largely a geeky thing to do.  I know it is a hobby for me.  I used my initial earnings to buy parts or upgrade some existing parts in otherwise retired machines [and I lost a power supply to my last machine due to a bad board, but I though it was the power supply, so the replacement blew too requiring a cheap board purchase and a second PSU].  All in all, I think I am past even thanks to starting in mid to early April, but not significantly ahead.  I am not sure, but if the income doesn't exceed $600(? ... been a long time since any side work didn't net me more than the minimum to tax), I wouldn't have to count it anyway [I know that is true for certain types of work, like one time small contract jobs, but best to talk to a CPA on that one].

All and all, it would be wise for people to keep track.  The bitcoin community is rather small, and tracking through obvious sites like Mt. Gox and other exchanges is easy for the IRS [or tax agency of any given country].  Consider the pools where the owners have clearly made profits; Tycho, Slush and others ... there is no way they could get away with not claiming that income [in Germany] .... one of the centers of economic socialism :p

Taxes disgust me. It puzzles me that so many people happily jump through all the hoops obviously designed to fuck the average person in favor of the tax lords and big businesses. I'm not making any money on Bitcoin, but if I were to do so, wouldn't claim it unless absolutely necessary. I see it as an amazing new tool to avoid the slavery of taxation.

Yes, taxation is slavery. A portion of your time, represented by money, is taken from you by force or the threat thereof.

As far as drugs go, here's what I have to say on that...

Well, you can choose not to earn taxable income, to not work. I don't think chattels enjoyed as much choice in that regard.

Barter is taxable in the United States. Unless you're subsisting completely self sufficiently, I think you will always have a tax obligation.

You would have to be on drugs to enjoy paying taxes.  :)

There are faster and easier ways to commit suicide.

Sure, but even in that regard, we have more freedom to make that choice than chattels. I can imagine a slave owner resorting to gavage to preserve a recalcitrant investment, but the IRS, not so much.

"Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
— Frédéric Bastiat