Bitcoin Forum

Okay, so we all know about the silk road selling illegal drugs... most know that they used to sell illegal firearms as well. One would assume other sites have taken over that trade. I don't know a ton about the tor network, but I'm sure we have all heard rumours about everything from child pornography to human slavery to hired assassins.

I think most of us probably agree that if possible, we would turn in anyone doing any of the last four things I mentioned (2nd amendment absolutists perhaps only the final three). Since BTC is a decentralized currency, there is no big brother watching over it... so it seems to me we need some sort of community self-governance to prevent the worst criminals from taking advantage of the system. I don't have any solutions at the moment, I'm wondering if this has been discussed in great detail or attempted? Do we have a system to at least attempt to trace where the profits of the most egregious offenders are going, and attempt to catch them when they try to spend it or exchange it for fiat?

Is it the responsibility of bitcoin business owners and investors to help governments catch those doing real crimes? I think so. Or is the BTC community so wary of governments that they would avoid helping them even to catch bad people?

The case of the Silk Road is quite unique. Now that they are not selling firearms, most libertarian minded people probably don't think that the Silk Road is that bad of a thing. I think drugs should be legal and regulated. I just don't think that having BTC used as the default currency of the international illegal drug trade will help legal bitcoin businesses in the long run. Or will it? The same designation doesn't seem to have hurt the USD over the years, but obviously apples and oranges.

People are also worried that losing the black markets will cause such a drop in usage it will kill the BTC/USD exchange rate... so be it. Certainly a market correction will occur if bitcoin stops being using in the gutter, but the rate will skyrocket as our little cryptocurreny becomes widely accepted. Let litecoin have the silk road... I want the Apple store, local fishermen, and the Taj Mahal

What do you think? Should bitcoin financial institutions make a more concerted effort to restrict the funds from crime, and report to authorities? Or would that just cause one huge clusterfuck with all the, let's say, not perfectly organized BTC operators that seem to come and go?

I've spoken with three major Canadian law firms recently about creating a regulated BTC based securities exchange and financial services company, and the main concern, far above the SEC, has been that governments will act in the near future to damage bitcoin due specifically to the publicity of the silk road. Specifically the center-right, strongly anti-drug administrations currently in the US and Canada. They will say they are going after human trafficking but will spend all their resources on potheads.

My real question is, can we do anything as a community to crack down on the real criminals using bitcoins, or are we going to wait and see how and when governments do it for us?

I don't think the "community" should do anything, if individuals want to take action to help or hinder, that's on them, not "everyone". If someone want's to start a group that accepts donations to help the government in various ways, that's ok too, just so long as it's understood it's not the community as a whole approving or disapproving anything.

I don't presume that I own other people, their body and the fruits of their labor in order for me to have the ability to tell them what they can or cannot die, as long as they aren't doing harm to me or my property.

+1000

Neither do I, but those are certainly the scare monger tactics we are already hearing. I wouldn't call the cops if I saw someone buying drugs on the street... the question is, when large drug dealers are running huge amounts of illegal money through my exchange, do I turn a blind eye?

Would finding out that an exchange you use does a ton of business with silk road dealers make you less likely to use them? Should we be asking these questions of the exchanges, online wallets, etc that we use? If the US government considers a big exchange to be laundering money to drug dealers, or some cartel... they'd better be hosted in outer space.


Have you looked? The tor network is known to have child pornography, illegal gun sales, and (alleged) hitmen at least. Of course they are using bitcoin too, it's self evident.

Good call. I didn't mean to say everyone in bitcoin, but primarily the financial services companies, some of whom certainly exchange fiat currencies with people who received the BTC as the proceeds as crime. Some government somewhere may have a case that the exchange was the one actually paying the criminals.

A non profit that track down addresses from extremely serious crimes and reports them to the exchanges is an interesting idea... but it would have to be a big group, four people can't have the power to decided who is a criminal.

I know I could go read the terms and conditions of every BTC financial service company, but if every online company lived up to their TOS... well... something.

Most of what comprises the "Black Market" is actually activity that is not immoral - purchases of drugs, guns, money laundering, etc. These are not immoral acts, and thus nobody here should try use force to prevent them from happening.

Now, for those acts also part of the Black Market which ARE immoral (human trafficking being the obvious one), it'd be great if anyone in this community can help to stifle them.

If governments can't stop/impede blackmarkets what do you think a bunch of forum nerds will do? :)  It is counterproductive and a waste of time.

Now if I run a cross some evidence of child pornography I am going to report it to the authorities.  I will report it if it involves Bitcoins, or USD, or Yap Stones.  It isn't my job to actively try and find it though.  If I wanted to do that I would have joined law enforcement.

I'm not trying to discuss the morality of anything. I think all drugs should be legal. I certainly DON'T think automatic weapons should be sold in an totally anonymous, unregulated market. That's just me. I respect other opinions, there are certainly grey areas in everything. Those issues can only be changed at the moment via our governments, I completely agree that they are not for us to judge.

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating anything, I am simply attempting to start a conversation, primarily to inform myself. I am not trying to, and don't want to shut down the silk road. I'm saying that it is going to happen eventually, the only question at this point is which BTC business go down with it.

If we don't have any kind of mechanism for preventing serious criminals (human traffickers etc) from using BTC to launder money, we are giving the banker controlled politicians an excuse to go after bitcoin.

lol well you got me there, that's totally true.

I'm not trying to suggest we band together to rid the internets of crime. Just something to show governments and potential regulators that we are not encouraging outright crime, and have some system for reporting blatant illegality. Not to mention, the T word. Once those FBI agents and/or politicians find a jihad site with a bitcoin address... let's just say I wouldn't want to own the exchange that sent them a wire transfer.


That's the key. I apologize if this has been discussed to death already and we have all just given up!

You're right, and I do agree with those arguments. I don't know what the answer is... I'm asking if anyone else has any ideas or plans.

I don't understand how this statement can avoid being a contradiction.

If you think other people (that do not share your opinion) should be prohibited from buying and selling automatic weapons in an unregulated market how can this be construed as "respecting other opinions"?

Restricting the actions of other people is by definition not respecting their opinion, because you want to take action based on your opinion while simultaneously preventing them from doing the same.

Black market abandoning Bitcoin will be the end of Bitcoin. OP is a moralfag. Bitcoin is disruptive and it must be such, for your legal needs use paypal and wire transfer that comes with 24/7 noob support.

the only thing exchanges should do is comply with the laws(to keep them from getting shut down.) If law enforcement wants info from address KNOWN to be SR then they should cooperate like any other business. Also assuming there are legal warrants to do so. But trying to take charge on their own and stop it is just absurd to be honest.

lol buying an automatic weapon is not an opinion, it's an action that is illegal in every country outside the middle east and Africa.

I respect your opinion that you think you should be able to have an AK47, but I think that's crazy and support laws regulating guns. That's why we have society. It has nothing to do with bitcoins or monetary policy.

That's you in a personal situation. I'm talking about us a group of business owners who are invested in the success of BTC.

its the wild west like internet was in the beginning... it will all settle...

blackmarket will be there, if not in BTC it will be in LR or other digital money

This is a question about anonymity and anonymity is a two-bladed weapon. If you do bad things, it makes hard for good people to punish you. If you do good things, it makes hard for bad people to punish you. Considering the nature of bitcoins, the bitcoin community chose to support anonymity.

But yes, of course, if you are a financial service provider, and are lucky to identify some bad guys laundering money through you, then it would be good to stop them.

I'm not sure if the community itself is now prepared to act like a police, or even a state. Maybe I would suggest people to take a vote about how they feel about various misbehaviours: I don't mind / I will report / I will fight. Maybe there would emerge something.

My post had nothing at all to do with whether anyone should or should not be able to have an AK47 but rather whether or not you can recognize a logical contradiction when it's been pointed out.

While I applaud some (most?) of what anonymous has attempted, I don't think individual hackers from an anarchist collective should be publishing people's personal information and accusing them of crimes based on ip addresses. My basic wish is being able to find people who are profiting from these things and using BTC... and then attempting to identify the exchange accounts they are using... and then forwarding that information to appropriate authorities.

I realize this is difficult and presents numerous privacy and other problems... so have the BTC financial services companies essentially decided to turn a blind eye? What do they do if and when they get complaints?

I guess you missed this forum thread:

The Very Best Place to Launder Money? Why, US Banks! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99919.0)

And you probably never saw images like this:

http://imageshack.us/a/img841/4832/drugmoneyandweaponsseiz.jpg
(Money and weapons seized from Mexican drug cartels.)

...at least twenty-two journalists and more than 35,000 people have been killed in drug war related violence since 2006

I hope you also know there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, and that was and is a blatant invasion to protect the U.S. dollar.

I watched actual combat footage from Iraq taken from an attack helicopter. The gunner, "crazy horse", fired on some "enemy combatants". Reports from the ground team came back that the stomach of a ten year old girl was blown out. The response from crazy horse was damn, well that's what you get for bringing children to a fight.

You're not going to win a morality contest with the U.S. dollar over Bitcoin. The U.S. dollar being as dominant as it has for as long as it has probably financed more immoral activity than all other fiat combined. Bitcoin is a tool, just like guns which can be used for bad or good. You don't look at unwanted behavior and attack the tools, like guns, because that doesn't work. All it does is hinder the people that could use it for good. The unwanted usage will always find a way to continue by going underground. Just look at alcohol prohibition, the trillion dollar drug war, and gun laws. You really think someone can't buy anything they want if they really want it?

"Should we be trying harder to stop the BTC black market? "

I think that realistically there is very little that can be done to prevent it.
That is the nature of bitcoin.

You're forgetting that even in a voluntary trade people can become victims of others (misrepresentation, con etc etc.).
So there can be plenty wrong in just that tiny universe of two people making one deal.

It's not that simple.
The trades of weapons or drugs themselfs may not be moral, they are part of a bigger structure of immorality.
For instance, human trafficers often have guns.
If such guns are not easily available then that puts a barrier on them acquiring the guns.
If i ask you 'through what are drugs and guns often related' then you propably will say 'crime'.
So there seems to be a correlation, at least partially, between the sales of these things and crimes.
I'd agree that you cannot be certain from one single trade wether the goods will be used moraly but you can be pretty certain that a place that deals in such things will attract criminals like fly paper.
So that leaves us with a dillemma. Smoking gun but no actual proof.

yeah acoindr, I think you're mostly right, although I do hate to tell my fellow libertarians who are from the USA that gun laws do work, if what you are trying to prevent are premature deaths. Looks at the amount of murders in the US per capita compared to Germany etc. If your goal is something else, then gun laws may not work. They certainly work well in places like Vancouver, but obviously would not be just or feasible in say Kandahar or the actual wild west. Anyway, that's totally off topic.

Of course those banks can get away with it! They control the regulators and governments!

One of our problems as I see it, is that allowing unfettered access to serious criminals will be the exact excuse they need to outlaw the use of bitcoins/all stateless currencies in the US, Canada, EU, etc. As people have mentioned in other threads... read the upcoming trade agreements. As someone who would like to see BTC grow as an international currency and instant trading and payment mechanism... let's just say I would prefer the easy way, instead of it being a constant battle with western authorities, to the point where BTC becomes viable ONLY for criminals and underground websites. If you think loosing silk road would hurt bitcoin, try loosing mtgox and every other exchange overnight. We'd be back to buying 10,000 BTC pizza's.

What if kidnappers start using BTC? It's the next logical step... we just saw that person/group attempting to extort Romney use BTC.

moralfag? lmao why am I answering this troll?

This has nothing to do with morality. BTC is supposed to end monetary tyranny and hyperinflation, not be a shelter for criminals.

Okay okay jeez I didn't say I had a master plan, I am just trying to think of/discuss ways that bitcoin FSCs and related companies could possibly be more pro-active.

How the hell do you figure that? First, you need to explain what is a premature death? Do you mean like a teenager dying, possibly from something drug related? I have news for you. Thanks to the US "war on drugs" which has had little success in curbing drug use, but large success in escalating violence, I can tell you drug dealers would NOT be prevented from getting guns because of gun laws...


What's you're point here? You think gun laws would make the U.S. a safe society? Ha!


My goal is freedom. That's what works. I had a friend from Holland who couldn't understand our 2nd amendment. Apparently, you're not allowed to keep a gun in your house in Holland. I asked how you're supposed to defend yourself when someone breaks in? I don't understand how they get away with that. But on the other hand, they allow a lot more freedom of things like recreational drug use there... Anyway, I explained to her that our gun rights exist so good guys can carry guns too. She had never thought of it like that.


It doesn't matter. Whether governments try to outlaw Bitcoin or not they can't stop it. And they don't have jurisdiction over every country either, so all they will do is make it a political issue.


Like I said, the U.S. dollar has probably financed more immoral behavior than all other fiat currency combined. It's almost like you think these kinds of things were not possible or happening before Bitcoin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Now check te rate of the US an then calculate a mean of the EU countries.
That's how the hell we figure that.

Also, the drug dealers with guns are not what racks up the death count.
Sure, smart criminals get their guns anyways, even here in holland.
But the law prevents dumb criminals (of which there are many more than smart ones) from playing around with toys that are a danger to society.

Sorry for not being clear, what I'm saying is that if your priority is preventing people from being murdered or accidentally shot and killed, gun laws save lives, obviously.

This is why we don't have hundreds upon hundreds of gun murders every year and stories about five year olds shot by their seven year old brothers in Vancouver, like a lost of American cities do. People can't have handguns outside a gun range, period. People can have hunting riles, not uzi's. Much harder to carry around on the subway, much easier to hunt with.  ;-)

As I mentioned, other people may have different priorities. If you are more concerned with being able to shoot someone who breaks in to your house than you are about gun violence, than obviously you would be against (at least most) gun regulation. People who are not afraid of their own shadow would probably risk it for the sake of countless needless deaths. Keep in mind that if someone is breaking in to my house here in Vancouver, or any country with half decent gun control (and ours is terrible), I am 100% CERTAIN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A GUN!

Baseball bat > junkies without handguns.

Handgun vs junkie with handgun = a lot more dangerous and unpredictable.

Of course there are other reasons that gun laws may be good or bad, but I don't think this thread is the place. If you are in a position where you think an armed citizenry is a defense against government tyranny, as many Americans do even to this day, then that could be another valid reason to oppose gun laws. I don't personally agree that this has been a good strategy since, oh, around the time the US built a standing army, but hey, I'm not right about everything. I certainly support the idea, if not the implementation.

Thanks, very informative and reasoned.

https://imageshack.us/a/img607/7854/13v152.gif

You think we, as a community, is going to stop what organizations with billions of $$$ can't stop themselves?

They should legalize all that stuff and use the taxes on drugs to provide free healthcare to their citizens instead.

I like that image

There is no crime if there is no victim.

There is no such thing as a safe society.

I'm saying that if the USA banned all guns except hunting rifles, there would be an extreme drop in murders and accidental shootings, obviously.

I am not advocating anything, lol you are making me sound like a left wing activist, I just came herr to talk about the basic long term future of BTC/fiat exchanges, and how criminals and government criminal investigations threaten them! I am just stating the obvious with regards to gun laws, really nothing to argue about.

Democratic countries (if we can still call ourselves that) decide what their priorities are and, ideally, create laws that advance those priorities. As I mentioned above, I am in no way claiming that reducing gun violence has to be every country/state(province)/city/communities' top priority. Certainly taking away the AK47 of someone in Somalia trying to defend their hut from armed warlords is not a good idea, and no one would advocate it. Gun laws are not intrinsically good or bad, everything depends on the circumstances.


If the western economic powerhouse nations shut down the exchanges... as I said, 10k BTC pizza will be back. Certainly I see the romantic appeal of fighting the global system at any cost, but some of us here would actually like to advance BTC in our lifetimes. What freedom do you gain by holding worthless BTC with no where to exchange them? This chance at economic freedom will be lost and we will all be back to fiat for the rest of our lives.


...obvious and irrelevant.



I honestly can't imagine what I said that could possibly lead you to believe that. Please attempt to advance the actual discussion at hand or kindly move on

No, not stop, not at all. Simply talking about some system of accountability at the exchange end. Again I am not declaring that this is a brilliant idea that has to be done, just something I've been considering while developing a legal BTC service of my own, and I'm trying to gauge what everyone else thinks about the matter.



That is for damn sure. For vastly improved rehab services as well (especially in countries who already pay for health care collectively through taxes). In the USA, sure, make the stoners pay for everyone lmao.

And why are they not for us to judge? By your own admission and judgment, current state-imposed drug laws are flawed. As others have already pointed out, you would seem to be contradicting yourself on a number of points.


Personally, I hope the statists go after Bitcoin sooner rather than later. If Bitcoin survives the onslaught, great. In case it doesn't, another more resilient cryptocurrency will rise up from the ashes soon enough (cf. BitTorrent). Either way, it'd be nice to get past this little hump as soon as possible; and once past it, discussions like this will be rendered wholly irrelevant, since the currency will already have been proven to be resistant to its worst possible adversary trying to disrupt/destroy it, and as such there will be no more stopping the inexorable expansion of the black market.

"Note I did not read the whole post"

If someone wants to buy drugs off the internet let them, better then them going out to a dealer who might have ill intent. Yes they could have ill intent over the internet. But when is the last time you heard of crack head getting jipped on SR and returning to kill the dealer? Or someone going to buy 1000 dollars worth of weed and being gagged tied and bound. I do not support hard drugs at all but if it keeps some crime off the streets and save me some tax dollars have at it. Go in your house and die in a corner. At least science will have another body to study on.

This is a great way to live, " Do not bother me and I will not bother you." In fact that is what america was built on but we have strayed So so far away from it.

FYI, the so-called Wild West was in fact a safer place to live, as measured e.g. by per capita homicides, than many modern American cities such as Detroit or Memphis. You may wish to read The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill. The Hollywood depictions of the American West have much more to do with best-selling serialized fictional accounts than with the actual reality of the time.

Your logic doesn't compute. Your chart shows firearm related death rates, and your argument is gun laws prevent premature deaths right? Well, Colombia tops the list at #1 with the U.S. at #10, but how can that be? Doesn't the U.S. have some of the most relaxed gun laws? And besides that, Colombia has a population of under 50 million, whereas the U.S. is over 300 million... yet the U.S. is not number one on your chart. How can that be? I'll tell you. It's because there are a lot of societal factors behind gun related crimes and deaths. You can't broad brush everything and say the solution is gun laws. I don't have time to argue this properly, but I hope this can shed some light.

By the way, what would you do if someone broke into your house and held a gun on your family?

a) Columbia is an ultra right wing hellhole where literally everyone is armed and people get shot by government sponsored death squads.
 
b) you don't seem to understand what per capita means.

c) that wouldn't happen because where I live illegal handguns cost $3000 so crackheads, kids, and anyone else who would break into a house DON'T HAVE THEM.

hahaha, well that settles it! Science and reality be damned, some jackass got a book published! Let's go give everyone in Japan Glocks and watch the violence there DECREASE.

LMFAO too much guys, come on already. Go argue gun control in the political forum, this is silly.

No there wouldn't. There would be a violent revolt against the government for trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting rifles, by the way.


You're right. I'm sorry. It's a bit of an emotional topic; the right to keep and bear arms is one of the founding principles of my country.


No it wouldn't. Bitcoin would route around, and probably flourish more. In case you haven't noticed it's the "illegal" areas that are thriving most with Bitcoin right now. At least the community is trying to put the currency to more legitimate uses, and even allow taxes and regulation if that's what people desire. Bitcoin is just a tool that allows people to do with it what they wish. The neat thing about it is it doesn't make anybody ask permission of anybody else, which includes authoritarian governments.


There will always be a way to exchange bitcoins, just as there is now a way to buy drugs in pretty much any city in the U.S. despite the trillion dollar drug war to prevent it - which, btw, has greatly enriched drug lords...

My mistake on that one. I glanced at the chart and didn't notice the ratio.


What if you live in a really ritzy area, the kind of house that might have paintings worth a few hundred grand in them? Are you saying those type rich people are not allowed the protection of a gun either?

I'm sure a lot of people would get into shootouts with the agents rounding up the guns... this is the nightmare scenario for 2nd amendment absolutists of course. I'm not saying it would be easy, desirable, or even possible, simply that if the country did it, murders/gun deaths fall. There is no possibility of even an individual state in the USA considering this in my lifetime or yours, so it's really just theory.



I get that, and I know the history. Communities should set their own priorities,  and I think that as long as we remain (somewhat) democracies, Texas will allow handguns, and British Columbia won't.   :-)


I disagree with the premise that the illegal industries currently dominate the bitcoin marketplace... not talking about possible tax positions... talking about blatantly illegal goods/services. SR gets the press because it's sexy, but they have made 5 million USD at best right? One scammer took the market for that much in a single period. The market cap for BTC is about 122 million.



I have to respectfully disagree again. Drugs have intrinsic value, people will always trade for them in any currency, under any circumstances. Right now the speculation that BTC use will grow accounts for a good chunk of its market value. If BTC trading is forced deep underground and never accepted more widely, it's value will drop to almost nothing. There is no value in a bitcoin unless there is a market for them.

What good is a cryptocurrency that can't be used on anything but buying drugs and hitmen? Other than, well, those things.

Yes, rich people too.

No guns for anyone, except hunting rifles.

How often do you honestly believe million dollar art heists at gun point happen in countries that have very few guns? Come on, that's Hollywood.

Not to mention that if some Italian Job is happening on you, chances are you aren't going to wake up in the middle of the night half asleep, and shoot a bunch of professional cat burgers without being shot yourself, or your family being shot. If you have top notch security and they still get past it, yes, I think you should let the Picasso go. Far, far, far more rare than someone accidentally killing their own young child with a handgun. I can remember that happening twice in the USA last year alone, so if the options are to arm every fucking drunk idiot in this country with a lethal weapon, or lose a few fancy pantings, my choice is obvious,

+100

Just for the record gentlemen, keep in mind... I love guns as much as the next guy. I have a membership at one of the only gun ranges in Vancouver. I personally would like it if I could own a few guns and keep them in my house... but I don't think I should be legally allowed to. That would mean that everyone is allowed to be heavily armed, including spree killers, people about to have a breakdown, and drunk guys who kill their families because a gun is handy instead of just seriously assaulting them (and then getting arrested before they are dead)... huge difference. Not to mention that bugler you are talking about... here they run when you turn the lights on... in an armed country you had better shoot first or they will.

Search for "Vancouver burglary murder", like me you won't find much. We have violence and violent people of course, but everyone having a gun has been proven to increase that violence exponentially.

When I was younger I was a freedom absolutist, but I guess as I've aged I've come to the conclusion that we have formed societies to protect ourselves and our families, and the decision by a society to ban most guns and heavy ammunition has positives that clearly outweigh the negatives. Just like drinking and driving laws, are you freedom or nothing guys against those too? I'm not saying that the USA should ban guns, in fact I don't even know how this topic got derailed. Something about illegal automatic weapons not being dangerous.

I like the idea of people having power over government, but with modern militaries we are so far beyond the days of keeping authoritarianism and tyranny in check with violence or the threat thereof, it doesn't seem rational to me. Some 18th century ideals are fantastic, but their specific remedies are so outdated it is hard to comprehend.

We get it... if you're terrified of everyone around you all the time, carry a gun so your dick doesn't feel so inferior, and in exchange allow tens of thousands of additional violent deaths a year. As long as YOU aren't afraid of getting out of your car at the grocery store.

Funny, I have never carried a gun in my life..  I'm in my 40's... I live in a city with 3 million+ people and extreme poverty... yet I don't think anyone has attempted to have me do anything by force since, I don't know, elementary school. What are you guys so afraid of constantly? Other guns I guess lol

lol, this stupid person doesn't realize that there are other options than fighting or arguing.
Also i don't agree with the equal footing thing.
There are more ways of dealing force than just with guns. Many more. No equality there.
And the last paragraph basicly tries to argument that guns do not lead to lethal situations because they are lethal.
Statistics tell us that guns do in fact lead to more lethal confrontation.
The wrong assumption is that everyone who can own a gun is civilized.

BlackHeartFund, I really wish I had time to continue this discussion as it's a fun one :)

I've got to go, but I'll just address a few ones because I simply have to...


No, that's not how it would work. lol It would never get as far as agents rounding up guns, and they wouldn't be that stupid. Estimates put gun ownership in America at about 80 million. There are about 300 million Americans, so I'd say about 1 out of every 3 Americans being armed is about right.

Now, if the relatively few people in Washington tried to craft such a gun control law you can bet, first of all, even more Americans would acquire guns. Second, there would soon likely be organized militias to give some order and direction to those 80 plus million armed citizens, and an armed march on Washington would probably happen, with the government powerless to stop it. How many agents do they have? A few hundred thousand, at most? Even the US military doesn't come close to those numbers, with only about 1 million on active duty; and many officers would join pro 2nd Amendment ranks anyway, because they swore to uphold the Constitution, not whatever leader is in power at the time.

The Founders of America knew what they were doing.


First of all, bitcoins are not going anywhere. You have to realize there are many industries Bitcoin threatens to take over and dominate - both legal and illegal. Let me just give one example of each. International money transfer fees are multi-billions of dollars every year. As you know Bitcoin can effectively drop the transfer fee on any amount of money to near zero or zero. On this fact alone bitcoins value can be estimated to be worth billions of dollars annually in savings. Next example, is of course drugs, where bitcoin is already flourishing. How much market share does bitcoin currently have on global drug trade? 1%? Less than .2%? Now consider how much the global drug trade is worth priced in dollars... Trillions. And you respectfully disagree and say bitcoins value if forced underground would drop to almost nothing?  ???

And we're not even talking about fun stuff like guns and prostitution yet.

Intellectual dishonesty, ad hominem posts... what exactly is BlackHeartFund's purpose here?

Absolutely a fascinating discussion. One could make an argument for and against though. Banks, meaning not BTC related, make a ridiculous amount of money on illegal actions, half-truth actions, manipulated markets actions, and actions that should be illegal from a moral standpoint. However, what the banks do, at least in terms of referring to the U.S. and general European banking system, is legal because they lobby the heck to make it legal.

The concept of quantitative easing, fractional reserve banking, and the federal reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve yet has a .gov website address) is rather ridiculous. I would be bold enough to say that the system itself there is run by a black market functioning through various legal loopholes to money laundry itself into "legal" markets.

Therefore, this discussion almost seems less a discussion of stopping a black market and more of what is or is not a moral thing to allow for trading. This has definitely come up in a few posts which is great to see. So how does one determine what should or should not be allowed given, as time progresses, as does sociologically acceptable practices which dramatically change from culture to culture.

I for one am happy to see a money system not based on as a debt-based currency, fiat or not. Regulating BTC means that those with huge pockets (aka organizations that can print infinite money like the federal reserve) WILL buy out the system through some form of corruption or not.

Black markets have existed throughout history and will survive and find ways to survive.

Disclaimer: In no way am I advocating for immoral actions to go on like some of the examples in the OP. Just stating that regulated or not, those who conduct immoral acts will evolve to find new ways to continue what they do. Just reading basic newspapers over the years shows that.

Another question that goes along with this is how does one enforce such a thing given the many cultures that can participate?
It's one thing to know what is wrong, it's another thing to make it right. But you need both to have effect.

Quite right and also a great observation. Bitcoin really is a market that can't be enforced. Now it can be attacked by a Government outlawing it or big brother watching, so to speak. But to enforce a decentralized, global currency would suggest one culture is supreme over another.

Lot of good thoughts and ideas here, thanks everyone, please keep your opinions coming.

I think I started this thread with the idea that if the bitcoin community, and the handful of successful BTC financial companies that are in regulated nations could find a decentralized way to weed out some of the more extreme criminals using the currency on our own, we may be able to avoid having far more extreme/centralized/destabilizing/authoritarian enforcement regimes imposed on us at the figurative, or literal, barrel of a gun. The options seem to be those, or at some point accepting that BTC will be 100% illegal in most nations, and have it become a completely anonymous/underground currency (which it is not now). I can certainly see why some people want the last option, but I don't. Am I being way overly ambitious/bullish on BTC? Should we be doing what's best for the next 100 years of BTC, or should we try to have it gain acceptance under our current nation-state legal structures, in the near term? Seems to be a very fundamental question, I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere thoroughly... I'd appreciate any links.

I seem to have come across to some people as disliking the SR for moral reasons... could not be farther from the truth. I support the legalization of drugs 100%. I didn't (and still don't) have the most clear idea of what specifically I was trying to consider with this... and as you can all see, I do tend to be a touch long-winded. I certainly did not mean to sound as if I were attempting to suggest we start trying to route out the SR and similar entities here and now. I am trying to gather as much information as possible on this subject, and see if there is something of a consensus that something should or could be done about various degrees of criminality. What are the pros and cons of all ideas, not to mention the logistical, technological, and legal implications behind any proposals.

Free Marc! (http://freemarc.ca/group/freemarcca) A man I have known and respected for 15 years. He can't accept BTC donations at the moment... the prison commissary only accepts western union! However his wife is also accepting donations if you email her... talk about someone who should be using bitcoins. In jail for selling seeds legally from inside Canada, after paying taxes to the Canadian government for them for decades. Not the first cause I would donate to by a long shot, but certainly SR users could give some love to a good and decent man who has become another drug war casualty.

Just to be clear, my concern here is 100% business. Sure some of the examples I gave are horrifying crimes... but bitcoin is an answer to monetary problems, not societal ones. My interest is having BTC thrive and be accepted as widely as possible by non-geek society. I wish I could claim altruism, but I was not thinking of this as a way to seriously reduce crime outside BTC. That is not something we have the ability to do. I am talking more about protecting our business interests from the inherent risks of dealing with serious criminals.

The biggest threat I see to the medium term growth of BTC is an internationally coordinated crack down or regulatory regime, imposed by the eternally wise ones in Washington and Brussels, on BTC everywhere under the guise of fighting terror, human trafficking, child abuse, etc. Yes, they can't regulate the blockchain... however they currently regulate the lives of nearly everyone involved in bitcoin, and I suspect very few of us are wiling to risk prison for the cause. If dealing in BTC were a potential crime in western nations, your drug dealers would eventually run out of geeks to do the mining for their transactions.

If the SR were to be the only big red flag for law enforcement, and we could fight the image of enabling some of the actually (universally agreed upon and obviously) illegal/dangerous stuff, we would be in a better position to negotiate with regulators, governments, and in courts. Once some banker-owned congressman takes it up as a distraction project and starts equating BTC with terrorism, we're done in the USA, which makes it harder everywhere.

The idea of colouring bitcoins based on scam accusations etc is as ludicrously unfeasible as it is totally unwanted and unnecessary... I totally agree with that. However when someone trading in BTC is accused and/or convicted of something serious, eg kidnapping, terrorism, etc, it seems to me that it would be in our interest to have some obvious method of tracking and exposing the suspect, before governments start taking down otherwise legal exchanges, or worse.

I also realize that big banks do shady business, and that most BTC exchanges follow at least their own local KYC laws... but we 're not playing by the same rules... we're not even playing the same game. We're crashing the party... it seems evident to me that they should attempt to keep us out to maintain their monopolies. If that's the case, then at some point bitcoin is going to experience serious resistance from the traditional banking cartels... and if they can get their politicians to criminalize trading of decentralized/non credit-based currencies because of hyped up terror/crime scares, it seems to me like they would be eager to pull the plug on us.

Of course at the same time, identifying dissidents under repressive regimes etc would just about destroy everything that makes BTC great, and there are thin lines everywhere. Not an easy situation, and certainly one worthy of a great deal of additional input and analysis. Really thankful to everyone who is sharing info or opinions on the matter, or ever simply reading and thinking about it.

For those of us considering additional long term investments in bitcoin speculation or BTC-related services, these seem like extremely important questions.

What do you envisage when speaking about a government outlawing Bitcoin (be specific)?

Why would you want to tell others adults what to do with their money and ther life?

I don't get the assumptions that bitcoin is not perfect for the banking systems of the world to co-opt.

They could end up owning almost all the coins to the same extent they ended up owning almost all the gold or almost all the governments or almost all of anything else they wanted to own most of.

It would give them "reserves" easier to bump up in purported value than gold, because gold seems to tend to hit some kind of resistance due to the people who actually use it for something practical finding its inflated price due to ever-growing bubbles more and more crazy.

With bitcoin they can stick a certain amount in their reserves, drive up the price by buying more, put more in their reserves and so on, pumping it up to arbitrary heights while the commoners continue to run around borrowing and spending debt notes as usual.

So whether the black market exists or not, I think the premises as to who will be against bitcoin in the first place are flawed / misguided.

-MarkM-

Who do you think you are that you think you can decide for other people what they should or shouldn't protect and the manner in which they would like to protect it?

A US citizen can own an automatic weapon if it is registered, and they have the right permit. See here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14337 (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14337)

Also, AK-47s aren't necessarily automatic. Anybody can walk into a firearm shop and purchase a semi-automatic AK-47 after a background check.

http://mlkshk.com/r/2HUV

With that said, I do agree that the illegal and anonymous sale of firearms with Bitcoin could present a problem for us. The first time somebody performs a high-profile crime with a firearm they've purchased with BTC online... that's a media wet dream. Some people say that any media coverage is good, but sensationalized excrement (which happens often when the media covers shootings) could spark attempts to regulate Bitcoin, or make it illegal.

Back in the mid 90's where internet was not very famous, the same words were spoken, but instead of the "tor network", the "internet" was the "problem". Now, where almost everyone uses the Internet, the Goverments try to regulate it.  So the real message is "Unregulated? Dangerous! Do not touch! Bad for society! etc".

Sorry, but I don't buy that,

Because adults often are just big children...

Dunno, society maybe?
Not all people in all countries think it is bad to remove guns from everyday life.
You may just as easily ask why we have traffic laws or why we have any laws at all.
Why do those court dudes and dudettes think they can decide for you what is good and what is bad, uh?
There should be a law against that!

In the end it's about how you organize society.
When it comes to guns you have to be unilateral.
Either you give everyone a gun or you give noone a gun.
And that is up to the country in question and its inhabitants.

I do ask myself those questions and I can't find an answer other than they want to rule over me. However I'm not as foolish to think that more of the problem (laws) will solve this problem, I know that the only way to solve it is to ignore those who would like to rule me and defend myself and my property with any means necessary.

And in the end it's not about how the proverbial "I" want to organize a society, it's about what kind of relations I personally want to have with other people when I rent. But when I'm on my property, I'm king, and I can do what ever the hell I want if I'm not hurting anyone else or their property. Only a psychopath could suggest otherwise.

However I do agree with you and I will give up the idea of owning a gun when everyone else does too (including so called police and military or private security).

That is a risky proposition. The actions of law enforcement have shown that the best thing you can do is clear your cache and move along.

How does one define a universal explanation for what confines "hurting anyone else or their property" as there are many ways one could explain harm which is not all physical.

How? Simple. One doesn't.


It's solved by individual contracts. I really don't understand this obsession with universality.

I ask this again and again: why do you presume you can set rules for other people to follow? Do you think you own them and their property?

Fair response. So let's say you are on your property. I am on mine. I am doing something. I feel it does not harm you. You feel it does harm you. You ask me to stop. I refuse and continue on.

Solution?

That's all I mean by what I said. There's always exceptions to rules, thus the regulation infringements.

We come to a peaceful contractual agreement or I use force to stop you.

But the important point here is that this problem is between you and me. No one else owns either you or me and so no one else can solve it for you or me. We either learn to coexist or we kill each other. Evolutionary evidence would suggest we would learn to coexist and even help each other.

Well, i think that is not the basic point.
Society can only prosper when there is stability.
And there are different ways to achieve this.
In the US this stability is sought in personal protection. You get to have the same toys as everyone else.
In europe we as a society have decided we don't want to play with these toys and we banned them.
And according to the statistics it is a better stability (less incidents).
So it can't simply be that the 'powers' want to rule over you.
And seriously, what will your handgun do against a well trained and equipped military. So you say 'Ima gonna start my own militia!'.
But then you'll be taking the threat level up another notch, won't you?
So this is not a stability that naturally flattens out. There is always the risk of escalation because the tools of applying power are still in place.

And those who you suppose that rule over you also provide society with a lot of institutions. A coutry is realy much much more than just their chief in command.
What you can see in, for instance, europe is that the controlling forces have a heavily reduced arsenal as well.
There are very strict rules about using guns by the police force. You won't be shot by the police unless you deliberately threaten someones life. There is a proportionality to the alowed use of force and people living here generally agree with that.
But we also know that, as was said before, there are always ways to get a gun if someone wanted it bad enough. And that is why we feel that the police should have the option to use guns in certain situations. It's just that we don't want guns to be widely available to anyone. A police officer works within a framework of rules decided by society. That cannot be easily said about a random person with a gun.

But there is also this other problem. The thing about the US is that it's pretty big and has lots of places that are sparsely populated.
You cannot count on society to help you out in all cases and so it makes sense to protect yourself better. But i don't think this is true for densely populated areas. Europe has more than double the population density compared to the US and i think that takes europe past a threshold that alows it to maintain gun control. It would be much more difficult and unreasonable to do that in some parts of the US.

Ohhhhh we're going to quote statistics now are we? Well then let's look at Switzerland then and their statistics. They have an assault weapon in almost every home in the entire country, amongts the biggest army reserves per capita on this planet and yet it's a safe, relatively violence free and prosperous country. How do you explain these statistics?

Correlation != Causation.

Maybe, just maybe the real reason that there is so much more violence in the States is because of the ever bigger government, eroding ever more personal freedoms and the freedom to own property and causing an ever wider wealth gap with their plundering through taxation and the inflation tax caused by the creating of dollars out of nothing.

If you were right, why then was there barely any violence back in the so cold wild wild west era pre WW1 when practically everyone carried a weapon? In case you thought cowboy movies were an accurate depiction of how those times really were you are highly mistaken, actual history shows there was barely any violet crimes back then.

So yes by all means, please, let's talk statistics and historical facts.

Oh and btw, how do you figure there are less incidents and more stability especially in the last couple of years of mass violent protests and people literaly getting plundered by foreign bankers. You see, a violent killer or thief may not be only an individual, how are we here in Europe going to protect ourselves vs the state now since we don't have any weapons while they have oh so many?


The stuff you say only a 5year old could believe and even a child would need to trust you first because it's utterly ridiculous and goes completely against any logic or historical evidence.

Population density was lower in those days and there was no middle class that could be robbed. US was sparsely populated and so personal protection becomes a nessesity.
All that changed because of industrialization and the population increase that came along with it.

If the reason for more violence in the US is rooted in the pressure of the government then it seems to me the violence is directed at the wrong people.
If what you say is true and it is all a game to plunder the masses then the game played is: "Hey, lets rob these people and give them guns so they can shoot each other!".
So they would actually want people to own guns and you'd be just playing their games if you have one.

Good luck resolving that with your handgun. ::)

And i never said we live in a perfect world.
I'm just saying that owning a gun doesn't change this.

We in europe can protect ourselfs because the US is dependant on goods from europe (just like europe is dependant on goods from the US). That gives both parties some power to disrupt the economy of the other and it becomes a diplomatic status quo.
It would be incredibly disruptive to both parties if these relations broke so it is in the interest of both to cooperate and seek a midle ground.
The US would commit economic suicide if they abruptly break realations with europe.

Let's review the reality of bitcoin: an environment that places a premium on free speech and the absence of regulation, besides that imposed by the technology, ie bitcoin, it's highly improbably that anyone will make a stand and change the technology to prevent those activities.

However, I strongly believe that if bitcoin wants to go beyond the core of purely anti-fiat prompters and technically proficient users, it will need to implement some type of technological buffer.  I don't know what the solution will look like or what it will do.  But, we live in the real-world, where a global society which has by implied consensus, defined certain activities globally undesirable.  

So, if the folks in bitcoin wants to grow beyond a certain point, some activities will need to go further underground.    

If bitcoin wants to attract mainstream folks, work needs to be done to make the undesirable activities invisible.  On the other hand, I don't think most folks are in any hurry to leave the safety of the fiat world.  The lack of regulation, is why bitcoin is attractive to a large number of bitcoin users.  

Now, for a message directed at the currently greedy and psuedo financial gurus who hate Wall-Street, but somehow want to re-create it here: if you want to start making the real money, you need more innocent users.

Damn, hazek! You are on a roll my brother. School these fools on liberty.

If your goal is to destroy Bitcoin, then by all means stop the Bitcoin black market.  Otherwise, mind your own business.

I don't want to do that.



I'm not, we develop and implement rules as a society. We attempt to form our society based on the best interests of that society.

These generalized freedom arguments are so childish unless you think that everyone should be allowed anthrax and nuclear weapons in their homes. Why can't crazy fred protect his imaginary friend with mustard gas? Because, society.



lmao I know, that's why I would never live in Baghdad. Or Kentucky.



Exactly, now imagine it is a Muslim or undocumented Hispanic man who commits the crime...

So then please explain why you shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear or chemical weapons in your home.

That's a great question, I'm sure people have discussed this at length, I would like to hear what others think. I don't envision them outlawing the possession of BTC necessarily, that seems too complex and unenforceable. More like making it illegal to convert BTC to debt currencies under some BS money laundering laws/regulations.

Do you think it would be difficult for legislators and courts to make trading fiat currency for bitcoins illegal?

This is a good question, but lacks its counterpart. Would it be difficult for legislators and courts to make trading bitcoins for fiat currency illegal? Trading fiat should've been made illegal decades ago, since it represents a promise of future labor, or 'debt'. This is monetary slavery. The more people who discover this, the greater will there will be to invoke change by one means or another. And we need change. Not the hopium Obama kind of change, but millions of people storming the political gates kind of change.

sorry by trading I meant say selling and buying

Do you mean that in a legal way or in a technical way?

Both I suppose... but primarily legally. Once it becomes a crime to do something, that takes an awful lot of players and services out of the equation, right?

I would say some money laundering could be immoral if the money came from a dirty enough source. Basically how many tears and how much blood is on it before the laundering.

Every time you open your mouth in this thread it's exactly what you want to do.

Like in this same post:


Bullshit, a small group of people thinks it's ok to develop and implement rules for everyone else and force everyone to follow those rules with violence. I never agreed to be part of your so called society.


Yes, I do think everyone can do whatever they want on their property as long as they don't hurt me or my property. And whatever includes owning nuclear weapons and anthrax.


I never said I shouldn't be. If people were completely free, meaning they had complete control and ownership over their body and the complete control and ownership over their property, owning nuclear weapons is someone thing they could do. Btw people can still do this, even if there are some words on a piece of paper written somewhere that they must not.

Right. And since it probably makes more sense to eradicate them before they complete the devices maybe it is stupid to warn them they should simply be eradicated without warning, since warning them might cause them to try to prevent us interfering with their plans to blow us all to hell with anthrax and nukes.

-MarkM-

I disagree. BTC is just a currency, it's like a Toyota is just a car. Toyota isn't held responsible when some crook robs a bank with their car, and bitcoins are just a currency.

Blackheart, for someone who self-identifies as a libertarian, it sure seems like you want to get into other peoples' shit a lot.

Being a libertarian isn't just about appearing cool like having an ipo/ad or wearing one of those bobbly hats with thick-rimmed glasses, it's about principles. I suggest you examine yours.

I'm still unclear what OP is proposing be actually done about the "problem"

Black markets have existed since the dawn of time and will always be present.

I don't want to get into other people's shit at all. Keep in mind that in developed countries other than the US, supporting gun control is not "getting into people's shit".

For the 500th time I am simply posing the question of... fuck it, I can't sat it again.


lmfo that could not be a worse description of me. The last thing I have to do is defend my understanding of libertarian history or support for libertarian policies to you.

To all the Americans who call themselves "libertarians" mainly due to their gun ownership absolutism... what do you think about women who want to get a late term abortion?

hahaha just in case you thought the thread couldn't get more off topic.

Sheer, unadulterated nonsense. I'm British by the way. Your insinuation that it's only American libertarians that favor gun rights is way, way off base.

Plus your urge to sic the government on those participating in voluntary trade?

You're in serious need of some self examination, dude.

Some of us live in the real world, not an Ayn Rand fantasy.

Obviously governments are going to bump in to BTC financial service companies more and more often, and the legitimate ones will comply with regulations. Obviously law enforcement is going to be tracking people who are trading with BTC. Those who think they can flaunt the legal systems of the countries in which they operate (including where your customers are) will get shut down, there will be some 50 page thread about how shocked everyone is because the operator was so great, and more money will be lost.

I am trying to provoke discussion in regards to how this will affect bitcoin and how legal bitcoin financial companies should deal with it.

Congratulations, you are the 100th person to simply insult me claiming I want to police people instead of one of the 20 or so who have actually read the thread and contributed ideas of their own.

You guys can put money into companies who are sheltering people Interpol and the FBI want. The people who actually have a plan to deal with reality will still be running business in five years. I don't want to start a witch hunt or an inquisition and go after people, I want to know how major BTC related financial companies deal with, or plan to deal with, the very real concern of having legal problems due who is using their services.

There is a reason you can't openly drugs on this forum, and it has nothing to do with the operators 'not being libertarian enough' or 'wanting to interfere with trade'.

I'm not aware of the owners of this blog claiming to be libertarian (though they may well have) and that would be outside the scope of this thread anyway. I'm not even saying anything against your stance (though I don't agree with it). It's more your self classification as a libertarian.

I think that, simply, like all companies, Bitcoin based ones should only comply with the minimum law requirements. And if businesses can find a way to ignore the law successfully (either like Silk Road, or by being distributed enough as to be impossible to regulate), they should do that too. Black markets still provide tons of benefits, from jobs to goods for those who need them, so I wouldn't consider them inherently bad (the only bad thing about them is that governments don't get their licensing fees and tax revenues, but on the other hand, black markets also don't receive business and security protections from government that legit markets get). Being able to skirt government laws and regulations also points out errors in those laws, such as the way Bitcoin does for "money transmitter license" requirements (the system itself is the money transmitter, so there's no one to buy the license). Likewise, skirting government laws points out errors of laws themselves, such as laws that may have had good intentions, but which shouldn't have existed in the first place, and being able to easily skirt them causes society to change its mind on them (such as copyright laws, which are now often ignored, especially in cases where videos are limited to specific regions, or TV episodes are available on Netflix/Hulu months after their original air date).

TL;DR Bitcoin should push the limits of what we consider moral or justifiable, as opposed to what we consider lawful, and thus help redefine the laws. It likely won't die any easier than Bittorrent.

But the black market also caters to things that are fairly universally regarded as crimes against the person. Murder, forced prostitution, slavery and child trafficking for example. The answer is that you should probably do as your conscience tells you.

Yes, because those poor child traffickers need a job too!
Governments should stay the hell away from people making a good deal.
Right? Right? Am i right?
 :-\

To be honest, black markets are not a good thing to generalize...
There is a big difference between someone peddling ABBA tapes on a russian market and someone selling machine guns to criminals.

When I think "black market," I think about what the majority of the black market consists of: businesses that don't report taxable income that manufacture various trinkets, wallets, purses, clothing, etc, businesses that hire illegal aliens or are owned by illegal aliens, businesses started by individuals or families that sell goods or services without first going through the sometimes ridiculous licensing requirements, etc. I've heard that about one third of Italy's economy is black market. That doesn't mean murder, slavery, or child trafficking. It's almost entirely things like counterfeit fashion bags, clothing, wine, and olive oil, and just businesses that operate without reporting taxable income.

Actually, claiming that the black market is just the stuff you guys mentioned is pretty much like saying that Bitcoin is just about buying drugs on Silk Road or getting your money stolen by hackers. The most sensationalist stories will obviously be the loudest ones, but they are rarely even half of the whole picture.

I was just pointing out that the term black market is pretty wide and indeed is used for anything from selling illegal tapes on the market to hirinig illegals to smuggling weapons.
The black market as you describe has its own problems.
You say it creates jobs, but at the same time, by not paying taxes those people destroy jobs. In fact, they destroy a little of everything that is paid with taxes. Roads, education, etc.

Perhaps every job that only exists because people are forced to fund it at gunpoint instead of being created by voluntary trade deserves to be destroyed, the sooner the better.

Many of those jobs deserve to be destroyed regardless of how the funds are obtained.

That's not how society would survive.
If you had it your way there would be no things like computers because noone would pay for education.
So it's pretty ironic that you write a protest against how society is organized by using some of the newest and most advanced technologies this society has produced.
Think carefully of what you whish destroyed.

+1

This

The assumption being that government is needed for a decent education system. A belief that has been inculcated by... a government run education system.

Dude, you're apparently clueless as to why out world works.
Education is institutionalized by the government because otherwise most people would have never gotten an education.
Look at how things were before we had an educational system and look at countries where the educational system is not effective.
You can see a big negative economic impact.
The point of organizing it centrally is that otherwise you would never get to a point where most people were educated enough to support the whole economy.

Private schools and homeschooling don't exist... /waveshand

Again +1



Home schooling? lol yes let's have high school dropouts teaching kids that Jesus controls the climate and economy, what could go wrong? We don't need young people to learn peer-reviewed science, we need them to learn whatever random bullshit their parents believe. Fuck math.

Private schools kick ass! Look at all the world's great education systems that work without public education... oh right, there are none. New Orleans is doing great spending 5X more per student to have them get 1/3 the education! Yay to making profit at the expense of the education of the next generation of children!!! We'll just count on China and India to train enough engineers and scientists... I guess us western societies should take after Louisiana and start producing... preachers and beggars I guess? Great plan. Maybe the Tim Tebow Corporation will hire all these kids with bullshit private HS degrees... but I doubt it.  

Move to Somalia if you want absolutely no organized society. Also stop reading Ayn Rand, that is not serious.

Since you've set up all those statist straw men that bear no resemblance to reality, imagine them burnt down, and all your BTC eliminated, while you're at it. Orwell loves you!

i agree with your opinion.

How old are you? At some point you will realize that we all live in a society who's structures can only change slightly in our lifetimes. I know kids think that the global anarchist revolution in three weeks away, but it isn't. For the rest of our lives we will be living under the government structures we created, and the best we can do is liberalize them as much as possible, take as much power away from the centralized elite as possible. BTC is a great tool to democratize finance, but if you think you are ever going to be totally free from the kinds of limits out systems put on us, you are living in a dream land. Find a desert island perhaps, or move to Somalia.

Dreamers are great, we need ya, but keep learning. Once you get further in (public) university you will read more than just 1984 and a third of Atlas Shrugged, and hopefully at some point you'll realize that the world is a lot more complex, and solutions are not as simple as you think.

Thankfully there are reasonable adults who are and will continue to advance BTC within our current legal and political systems.

Guess what, the US department of education opened shop in 1980. 
Are you saying that the quality of education has increased since then? 

Yes, you need some centralized system to pay your teachers and maintain your buildings, equipment, etc. 
No, it doesn't have to be run from 500 miles away. 

Here here!  Ron Paul 2012!

I have not studied the US education system and am totally not qualified to answer that question. Obviously education in all developed countries has improved greatly over the past century as education became universal and mandatory.




I agree completely.

I'm sorry but despite being one of the only honest politicians I've ever come across... and having SOME good economic and social ideas... certainly he's amazing on war and military issues... but overall Ron Paul is a lunatic. He would roll the US back to 1880s labour standards, and give corporations total immunity in terms of forcing all the externalities on the general public. He wants no social organizing, which is really the exact opposite of true anarchism. Him and the new so called "Libertarian Parties" popping up over the past few decades are completely full of shit and have totally bastardized the term. They are essentially far right wing anarcho-capitalists who want to experiment with a totally unregulated market that is designed and guaranteed to fail horribly. Let everyone fend for themselves with no health care or pensions while the profits of the elite skyrocket, and more people become low income wage slaves until the day they die.

His moron son is basically just a tea party asshole who will never have the courage to follow in his father's very honourable footsteps in voting against republican wars and massive debt increasing budgets (like the Paul Ryan bill).

Ron Paul is such a libertarian that he wants to have a federal or state police officer supervising every time a vagina is examined in a doctor's office, to enforce a ban on abortion. Yay individual freedom... for those of us with dicks.

I suggest you look at how things were before we had an educational system. Things were not as desolate as you might think.

I have, and education was mostly for the elite in those days.
Seriously dude, your computer would not have existed if the world didn't take an initiative to educate the masses.

Never apologize for your opinions.


Not sure what you mean by "education system".  When the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower there was an education system.  It was called a "one-room schoolhouse" or even "homeschooling".  Either one is completely legitimate.

Sweet. Your demonstration of complete ignorance of the subject means I can feel free to disregard any more you have to say on the matter.

No offense but clearly you aren't basing these opinions of Ron Paul on his own words.  He certainly does not want to give total immunity to corporations, but rather make them not immune but vulnerable to market forces instead of having properly connected politicians bail them out with public funds.  He speaks of ending the forcing of externalities onto the public.  As I'm NOT sure you know he is a doctor himself and certainly does not want no health care or pensions but the freedom to choose what health care and pensions you would like.  

Obviously you never saw him speak on abortion because he would never consider a ban on abortion and consistently says the federal govt. has no authority in that arena.  And where did you get that bit about a federal officer supervising every time a vagina is examined?  Humorously wrong because he IS a gynecologist.  

As for Rand I have no idea because I haven't heard him talk much or checked his voting record (see how that works?), but I have a hunch you are right.    

 In The Transofmration of the American Economy, Robert Higgs touches upon the subject,

In 1870 about 90 percent of adult white Americans could read and write; by 1910, 95 percent possessed these basic skills.  For obvious reasons, literacy was much less prevalent among the nonwhite population - predominately blacks - but improvement was rapid.  In 1870 only about 20 percent of the adult nonwhite population was literate; by 1910 the proportion had increased to 70 percent. (p. 34.)

Jesus f h christ, education is much more than litteracy alone. We don't live in pre-industrial times.
And in any case, by 1870 the educational system was already growing for 100 years.
So in those days about half of that 90% of yours was provided by the educational system.

The educational system now bears little resemblance to that of a hundred years ago. Perhaps we need to define what kind of system we are discussing since it covers quite a range of options and I'm certainly not saying there should be no organized options at all.

You're right, we don't live in pre-industrial times which makes your statement "Look at how things were before we had an educational system and look at countries where the educational system is not effective." somewhat meaningless. Universities have existed for a long time (Oxford, founded somewhere around the end of the first millenium) for trades, guilds and vocational training were the norm. It's an untestable assertion that things would not have progressed as well or better than they have in a post-industrial world without a top-heavy compulsory educational system. Certainly my own experience is that the state schools system server high academic achievers and low academic achievers equally poorly and the skills I learned which I use in my current occupation were learned alongside my university teaching (and where the two coincided, the self-taught far surpassed the taught).

Regardless of the quality of your public school education, the one thing they do teach is how to study and learn; skills you later use if you decide to go to a university.
My personal opinion on public schools is biased, because the one I went to used to be one of the top 10 in the country (don't know what it is now). But regardless, the one thing that still keeps me conflicted between free-market anarcho-capitalism and centralized public schooling is fairness from lack of choice. Specifically, while adults can make their own choices (go to university or not) and live with the consequences thereof (be wealthy or poor), children are at the mercy of their parents, and have no say in what education they are able to get. In a system without public schooling, some kids (especially those from poorer, or more lunatic families) will not get any education. And sure, eventually those areas will become too dumb and unproductive, and the free market will punish them severely, but looking at history (and places like Alabama and Mississippi), the lessons learned from that punishment will not be "hey, we need education," but rather "I hate those elitists who think they know everything, and we should go kill them." More importantly, regarding children and lack of choice in education, I think that everyone should at least start on equal footing (or a reasonably similar footing) when they reach a point at which they are capable of making decisions as to whether to f*ck up their lives or not.

Also, should we be trying harder to stop the BTC black market?

Sounds as easy as stopping BTC. Any suggestions as to how?

Surely we should be calling it the African-American market?

lmfao

What a crazy, off-topic subject to bring up in this thread!

Except, they don't teach you how to think.  They don't teach you to ask why, they teach you to regurgitate information.  They don't teach you freedom of choice, no, and they don't teach you how to be happy.  That's all that really matters in life, right?  Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Maybe so. But there's been a bit of thread drift in this derailment. Looking back at the original point, it was that no/low taxes would mean no one would get educated and there would be no computers. It's a far cry from being against a centrally controlled compulsorily funded behemoth of an education system to not believing that opportunities should exist for those who would otherwise achieve if not held back by circumstances.

+1. Schools are there to produce compliant little worker drones.

Again, maybe I'm biased because my school was good, or because my parents were good, or because I just have a different level of curiosity, but thinking is exactly what we were taught to do. Yes, we had to read and memorize a lot, but it was all in order for us to answer questions that both the teachers and the students thought to be important. In my experience, I was taught why things happen, what kinds of choices are available for those things, what kinds of choices others have made, and what were the consequences of those choices. This applied to sciences, history, literature, and even computer programming. Learning this gave me a base upon which to make my own more educated choices, even if part of that education involved learning how to regurgitate information about those choices and their various outcomes.
In the end, after going to a good (well funded) public school, then a public community college, and then two public universities, I have come out of it with a very good understanding of social structures, politics, business, and economics, all of which have put me strongly into the libertarian/ anarcho-capitalist group. So, I myself am proof that public education =/= socialist indoctrination. If you want to argue that, you'll have to at least try to explain to me why your theory doesn't apply to me.
(P.S. my first four years of public education was in USSR, which had way more propaganda than schools in Americas)

My feelings exactly. The idea that western colleges are propaganda factories is totally off base. Very few places in society encourage such individualism and freedom of thought... certainly not the corporate structure. Certainly not any religious institution. Those are the systems controlling us with propaganda and dogma, not institutions of higher education. Education, self awareness, understanding of history and economics, these are things that liberate populations. Most of the world votes against their own financial interests happily because they don't know any better.



hehe well that is not saying a whole lot.

What black market?  All I see are individuals freely trading goods and services without interference.   ;)

You sure love to ASSume a fuck-ton from pithy replies and go TL;DR...


This. /endthread /unwatchthread

For the sake of everyone reading this thread, I hope this poster keeps his word.

The truth is that bitcoin would never have been as popular as it is today if the black market, specifically silk road, didn't kickstart it's awareness. I actually believe it still is the main recruiting factor.

I think the question is "should we be trying harder to promote the BTC black market?" And I think the answer to that question is obviously yes. If you're a Bitcoiner and you're STILL buying your weed with fiat cash, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's socially irresponsible and it sends the wrong message to our children. Let's be the change we want to see in the world and set a better example for our young people.

Buy weed illegally from strangers online instead of locally owned and operated, health inspected, non-profit medicinal discrepancies? Doesn't make much sense to me. I do agree that dispensaries should accept BTC, but all in good time. On SR you have no idea if you are buying from violent gangs, war lords, etc.

Hahahahaha +1  ;D

Because you are a statist bully who hasn't got a clue about what a market regulated strictly by it's consumers i.e. a free market is and can do for you.

I am not a statist in the least, I have just come to the conclusion that the world is slightly more nuanced than maybe I used to think it was. Where has there been a totally free market that has worked, ever in history? There hasn't been one of course, since they don't work and have proven this. It's like, science bro. Arithmetic + history = laissez faire commerce failure.

We don't need powerful states, but we do need people to be organized, educated, and operating within a system of agreed upon (and constantly scrutinized) rules. Any authority that exists over people should have to be constantly justified, but that doesn't mean there are no forms of authority that can be legitimate. There are rules and laws we need in place to keep our societies from breaking down and becoming run by violence and intimidation. Some forms of regulation and authority must exist to keep our society intact. You may disagree, but please don't put words in my mouth.

You consider SR a free market? Not even close. All kinds of regulations there, all kinds of regulations to cash in and cash out. Market forces are effective and important... hazek I really respect you based on most of the posts of yours I've read... but a totally free market being the answer to everything is a pipe dream.

If I've come across as a bully I do sincerely apologize, I realize sometimes I can come across as a bit of a prick. I've been getting about 4 hours of sleep a night for the past couple weeks, not an excuse but I will try to consider my posts more carefully from now on, the last thing I am here to do is offend people, be a bully, or try to get anyone to agree with me!! All I wanted to do here was promote discussion on this topic, and so far I have learned a lot from a number of you.

Imagine it's 200 years ago..:

I am not a slave owner supporter in the least, I have just come to the conclusion that the world is slightly more nuanced than maybe I used to think it was. Where has their been a totally free people in the market that has worked, ever in history? There hasn't been one of course, since they don't work without slavery and have proven this. It's like, science bro. Arithmetic + history = freedom for all people commerce failure.

See the problem with your reasoning, douche?


 ::)

I was thinking of replying point by point to every fallacy and sophistry your threw together in the rest of your post but honestly, I just don't care enough to waste my time like that.

You don't need to adopt, you can go extinct.  ;)

You have to be joking. lol slavery is the definition of free market. What prevents chattel slavery? der could it be laws and regulations perhaps?

Thanks, you could not have made my point better for me if you were trying.

If you guys love free markets so much I don't understand why NONE of you have packed up and moved to the Randian paradise that is present day Somalia? Total free market, no government, no gun restrictions, it's your dream come true. Yet, you don't go.

It's because grandiose economic theories like yours, and communism... ideologies that promise to solve everything so simply sound good if you think about them for five minutes, but not if you study them for 20.

That's just it, you are clueless as to what a free market is. You wrongly think "free" means "anything goes" when in fact "free" means "regulated strictly by market consumers" and I believe this mistake is the root of all your fallacies and sophistry your consistently display.

Jesus Christ, I have a degree in economics, I understand what a free market is. Guess what? Throughout history, including at this very moment, slavery is a fundamental part of any free market, because unregulated market forces always demand ever cheaper labour. Anywhere there are no laws and the market is only controlled by supply and demand, slavery exists. You can keep up the ad hominem attacks on me all day but your ill informed, half ass arguments are seriously just childish.

I am not trying to convince you, I can tell you are an ideological true believer. By far the most useless type of human being to ever have a conversation with, that's for sure. You've got it all figured out and everyone who thinks differently is stupid, we get it. Have fun with that. It's one notch below schizophrenia.

hmm I'm starting to see why this MOD has a yellow ignore button. Think I'll use it. I have a headache from this grade school nonsense.

One last ad hominem, just for the fun of it!


And there we have it ladies and gents! He is a status quo economist which explains everything.. It's ok buddy, it's not your fault you were taught everything you know by idiots and hey it's not too late to pick up a few books written by Mises or Rothbard and learn to use reason, logic and empirical evidence when studying economics ;)

I couldn't be farther from believing in the current neo-liberal dogma they sell us. lmao you just pulled that out of your ass, shocker.

I simply have an education and have formed my opinions based on understanding the science and history of economics. I am not an economist, that was my bachelors. I have a masters in business.

You, on the other hand, are the world's foremost economic expert because you got through two thirds of Atlas Shrugged before dropping out of high school.

I did actually look into this. Turns out it's not exactly true. Somalia is mostly a theocracy, ruled by Islam and sharia law. So no, not a very free market.

Regarding slavery, if you have a degree in economics, I'm sure you can figure out, and maybe explain to the rest of us, why businesses employing slaves would not be able to compete against businesses that pay their employees.

Oh, and BTW, I've read all of Atlas Shrugged (and a few of her other books) instead of one third. What does that say about me?
P.S. I also have a BS in finance/economics, and Masters in Business. Figuring all this free market stuff is a slow and somewhat uncomfortable journey. Took me about a year of hanging out on these forums before I came around.

Parts are being taken over by theocratic warlords recently, but for over ten years there had been no government and a total free market. Islamist gains are recent, since the invasion by Ethiopia. It's almost as if free markets don't work. Of course, the free market paradise we are going to create in America will never become overrun by violent theocrats!

Snooze you lose I guess. Too bad, would have been SWEET for you guys.


http://i49.tinypic.com/1114kmf.jpg

A better question to ask him would be how he thinks it's possible for a market regulated by strictly it's consumers i.e. a free market, the foundation of which is voluntary trade of all goods and services at the same time have a few participants being forced to sell their labor at a low or gratis price i.e. a few participants who are slaves.

Hey buddy that is fine, you are entitled to your beliefs. That's what they are though, beliefs. It is impossible for me to "come around" to anything. Either something is proven scientifically or it is not. A lot of unproven, or even disproved theories are not going to turn me into a "believer" because they sound good and have good salespeople on a message board.

Show me the facts brotha, I am a man of science. When it comes to Ayn Randian free market fantasies there are no facts to show, because history and basic economics simply disprove them. There is no science or evidence behind any of it, simply belief, blind faith. Like communism or religion, you guys have to believe and trust in it blindly because it sounds better/simpler than other options you have considered. Like communism and religion, and any blind ideology, there is this need to have all the answers in one tiny little bow, that if only everyone else was smart enough to understand, etc etc. This is faith, belief, blind trust, fanaticism, not science, not economics, and certainly not reality.

You are wading into ideology and fanaticism and that's just not my bag brother, but I am cool with you guys no matter what think.

Ideologues can't be convinced with science, so why am I talking to you, and those who rely on scientific evidence cannot be convinced with ideology, so why are you talking to me? Let's take a step back and get back to focusing on making money. I can't believe hope much time I've wasted on this useless back and forth tonight. I need a beer, or 15.

Geez, dude, you really know how to step on a man's joke, but fine, if you live in a medical marijuana state and have access to a dispensary that hasn't yet been raided by Obama's goons, more power to you.  For everyone else and for all of your other "Schedule Fun" needs, there's Bitcoin.

True enough lol

I am in Canada, but dispensaries are in danger here too from the feds.

That's a risk we accept. It is our choice, is it not?

Please do a search for and read a paper called "Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?" It will probably make you think a bit differently about the place (in short, compare Somalia's state of poverty and economic development to other distressed African nations. It's doing way better despite your claims about free markets leading to chaos).

Actually, it's quite a hell of a lot more complex. I've found that, with this crap, what might seem obvious doesn't actually work when you think things through logically. But, regardless...
We are both men of business and economics, both with substantial education and understanding of the topic as well, so why don't we discuss this as such? I'll understand whatever terms you throw at me, as I'm sure you will as well.
The free market idea is based on the theory that the power will stay with the customers, not the business owners, and that centralized business power can't exist, not even monopolies, because people will either find a reasonable substitute for whatever is being pushed on them, or businesses will realize that serving their customers is more financially beneficial than extorting them.
You say you like science and evidence. You know evidence in economics is scant at best, and is full of close approximations at most. It's all logical theory. So, please explain to me, using science or logical economic reasoning why you believe a free market society will fail. I would love to discuss this with someone on my level, especially since I'm still convinced that I haven't figured out everything about this.

The problem is, Rassah, that he likely doesn't view Economics as subjective but something that can be fully quantified like chemistry or physics.

And he would be right. Economics follows a set of logical rules, based on the rational choices of the people that participate in an economy. True, you can't calculate exact numbers for solutions in most cases, simply because there are too many variables, but the choices made by participants in an economy are rational, or at least are done with a specific reason, and thus their choices can be explained, and the outcomes can be logically deduced, just as the more precise numbers can be deduced in physics for things we can never measure on our own.

In fact, maybe that's the problem. Maybe he believes that economics are subjective, that you can't have a valid theory without prior proof, such as his claims that the free market is not possible because it was never existed (false, but irrelevant), while I believe that it is objective, and the outcomes of various theories can be deduced and "proven" as thoroughly as the physics around black holes.

Well, sure, nothing is perfect.
Just saying that we would not have been where we are without such initiatives.
And i too think that a change is needed for the future.
But i also feel that it should be a central effort so that everyone can benefit.
I also think that a commercial replacement on that scale would fail in that it would become super-efficient at delivering only that which industry asks for. That would seriously streamline our world for serving multinationals and i think we as a species would lose a little of ourselfs.
So what are the options for changing the system?

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

It seems you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how a typical human being works.
Saying that all people participating in an economy act rationally is the biggest nonsense claim i've ever heared about anything human.
In most cases it is irrational to think you can make a rational choice.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of irrational economic activity? I'm not talking about investment decisions made by scared people who don't understand the market, which then kills their investments because it performed the way it's supposed to. Laws that are passed are not "economics," either; they are attempts at controlling parts of an economy, passed for either informed or misguided reasons, with specific or unintentional consequences, which can also be deduced if the economy follows its rules.

E.g. raise minimum wage because poor people = higher unemployment due to supply of jobs not being able to afford the price of employees, but also less need for employment, because people who used to work two jobs can now afford to live on one. Rational, or at least purposeful decision, with known outcomes. Only question is the variables involved, which could make the outcome a range of possible but specific options.

Well, there you have your answer!
You said you don't want to talk about these people but you were refering to 'the economy' and these people certainly are part of that.
You seem to have an incredibly narrow view of what constitutes the economy.
So sure, if you just redefine the word to only include people that act rationaly you are right.
But then again you could redefine any word and be right every time! It's so simple!
You cannot say laws are not part of the economy. If they act on it they are part of it.
It's a 'true scotsman' fallacy.
Reality really doesn't care that you want to consider only part of the economy as the only one true economy.

You cannot make a rational decision if you do not know all the variables.
So in almost any case rationality is an ideal.
And there are various levels of closeness to this ideal.
Hence most people cannot make a rational decision and in fact a lot of the times have no way of knowing how close they are to the ideal with the decision they take.
So rationality is also a relative measure.
A choice can be considered more or less rational given the quality of information it is based on.
Maybe someone rationalized their choices based on the tooth fairy.
Maybe someone bases their choices on what they read in the paper?
Maybe someone bases their choice on what their financial advisers tell them to chose?
Maybe someone wants to take a gamble?

So in reality there is no perfect rationality and economy consists of various relative rationales competing on the world markets.


A perfect example of irrational economic behaviour is anyone buyig on impulse.
These people are not driven by ratio in their choice but by instinct triggered by advertisement (some yummy cakes in a shop window, for instance).
There is also a lot of economic activity simply from greed. People who are too overwhelmed by the posibility of profit to see the chance of winning is almost non existant.
Lotteries would not exist on this scale if people only chose rationally in their economic decision making.

This! Why would we want to stop the very thing that is keeping our currency alive? We should be thanking SL

Indeed. When one person makes a mistake for himself, it's a shame. When he makes it for millions, it's a calamity.

{government}

Well, the problem in the real world is that people (yes, even law makers) have to make desicions without knowing the consequences beforehand.
There are many situations in life where you cannot act rationally and just have to hope for the best.

Ok, so you're a bus driver carrying 30 people.
You drive on the highway and your steering wheel brakes off.
What is the rational thing to do?

Rationality cannot always be aquired simply because we want or need it.

Slam the brakes as hard as you can! Isn't it obvious that you need to turn a situation where there is partial loss of control into one where there is immediate and total loss of control.

Raise taxes? *shrug*

You're forgetting one important detail, hotshot. There's a bomb on that bus, and if your speed drops below 50 mph, it goes off and everyone on board dies. So what DO you do? Shoot the passengers.

I would call that noise. The few irrational investors end up losing their money because the market remains "rational," and performs the way it's supposed to. Otherwise it would all be a gamble. Likewise for impulse buyers. You can't build a business hoping to make profits solely from impulse buyers. You can however use the market to increase advertising exposure and increase the number of customers. Perhaps, to be a bit more specific, I should have said that the market follows a set of specific and rational rules, but we may not know all the variables that are involved. Thus, for future predictions, we can make fairly good estimates for what will happen, but can be tripped up by variables we failed to take into account, but for past economic events, we can study the known variables and outcomes, and explain why whatever happened happened, with fairly good precision. Moreover, we can state that if the economic event happened again, and all the variables were the same, it would very likely transpire in the exact same way with the exact same results, and because of the same specific variables having the same "rational" effect. Taking noise into account (the few irrational people), if the noise is small enough, we will still reach the same conclusions. That would not be possible if economics was just a bunch of irrational actions and swings.
As for government and politicians, they have their own "rational" reasons and outcomes. Some they might know (high state tax on cigarettes may mean more people buying from neighboring states, but benefits outweigh the costs of smoking-related health expenses), and some they may have their own rational reasons for, but may just be totally clueless about (ignoring important variables), even as other people are yelling at them, trying to warn them about issues that inevitably transpire, because the market continues to follow it's set of rules (take your pick).

And it's not just that lawmakers lack the knowledge and competence to make the right decisions for millions of people. They also lack the incentives.  They don't personally experience the negative consequences of their mistakes.  In fact, thanks to things like "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs," they're frequently rewarded for their failures.

The problem is, your observation of the market affects the market and not in ways that your model can account for. The market is something of a chaotic system. However, you are generally correct at certain scales.

That is why I wanted to say (but was hesitant) that even politicians make rational economic decisions. They may have disastrous consequences for the rest of the country, but these politicians know what they are doing, and are making rational economic choices that will benefit themselves, because they too (rightly) believe that the market will follow set predictable rules.

The part that scares me is just how many politicians are economic imbesiles, vs. how many are just playing the fool while knowing EXACTLY what they are doing and how they personally will benefit from it.


Yes, I would add "large scale" and "long time line" to my statement. A day's worth of sales won't tell me anything about the economics of Wal-Mart vs. Target, but long enough time period will and will fit a model, just as in other sciences, an hour's growth of bacteria won't tell me it's evolutionary trend in biology, or a count of a few neutrons won't tell me the half life of an element in physics/chemistry.

Sucks that I had to be so wordy to be more specific about what I meant by "economics is objective and rational." Sorry about that.