Bitcoin Forum

Until now it was just theory. Now there's an actual site running. Thoughts? :)

Early results seem much less controversial than I predicted.

You predicted that Bitcoin users would be happy with killing innocent strangers?  Why?

i don't quite support assassinating bad public figures, but they are far from "innocent strangers." they are part of the establishment; they are pretty much the scum of society but they hold the power.

Killing and "live and let live" seem contradictory.

In some ways all the options in poll are somewhat valid...

Probably it will end badly...

You are not approaching the problem with an intelligently designed business plan, which the free-market would provide.  Justice would be much more efficiently promoted by companies competing for percentages of recompensation of the victims of crimes, and the defendants would be paying for defending themselves in court (they do not have to pay for a defender and because any justice company that is consistently wrong on easy cases will be outcompeted the only people who will need any defense will be defendants in complex cases so most won't have a defender because they won't need one).  In this way all the incentives on justice companies is to create a fair system.  Because a purely voluntaristic society prohibits violence, all actions are either productive or neutral, only violent actions create negatives.  This means that although in certain individual cases it will be more profitable to commit crime on the majority will benefit more by refraining from committing violence.  Therefore, those non-violent communities will become the richest and the only way to spread any idea is through the use of resources, and therefore non-violent communities will have the most resources to further spread their ideology.  Anarchy is a certainty given infinite time, however I want to reach that point as soon as possible, so I want to help try to create it rather than just wait.

You really need to think that through.  The non-violent majority should not have to consider the possibility that some psycho is going to kill their elected leaders.  The very possibility creates the need for a police state supported by a NSA type infrastructure. 

I would not participate in this kind of thing, but I will not condemn people for expressing their opinion.

I believe though that the people on this list are not the people who are (or have been until recently) truly in power.

They are mostly just figureheads and are reacting to pressure from more powerful people who work in secret behind the scenes.

As long that the people that are actually pulling the strings from behind the scenes stay in power, then assassinating the people on this list - even if you think they deserve it - changes little.

Whether you follow the N.A.P. or stick to coercion, what good to you is a person who is dead?  The assassination market is little more than the intimidation market; you kill one guy, another takes his spot.  What a waste of money!

This scares the shit out of me :'(
Let me just say that I created a new account through tor just to post this. Don't want to become the first victim by criticizing it. ;D
I think this site can create widespread disorder where politicians, left and right, get killed. There are enough crazy people around to give high hit prizes on almost all politicians I'd think.
Even more terrifyingly this may be used against people just speaking their minds. Go on TV and talk about drug illegalization, bang and he's gone. Enemy of the caliphate? Bang.
Advocate sharia? Bang. The only one who will remain is the one without opinions at all. The one who is too average to come to mind.
Rather than freeing libertarians from the tyranny of the majority, it will unleash chaos and terrorism and indiscriminate killings.
Oh did I mention, just like people that criticize the site are under threat, so are the creators. No one with an opinion or agenda is safe. Also minority groups will be greatly threatened by this. Kikes? Gas them. Niggers? Burn them. Muslims? Stone them. Gay? Trans? Uh-oh.
Fortunately this website has quickly made itself enemy with some of the most powerful people alive, so I have faith that it will be dealt with swiftly and effectively.

Would be (is?) government honeypot. Especially after DPR, I don't think anyone's stupid enough to try hiring an assassin online without a personal reference from a highly-trusted long-time friend.

Before FH shut down, there were all sorts of retarded assassin websites which looked like those old 199x Yahoo starter sites. They were good for a chuckle. If there are any real assassins out there, I don't know of them, and I occasionally like to see what's going on in the underground. Maybe for the best.

^
Lots of great responses -- it's very encouraging!

How does killing someone compensate the victims?

The problem you have here is the press/media influencing people's opinion.

Will I get killed if I say the people organising this are lunatics!

Probably not, but the NSA are probably masturbating to this conversation a bit like in that South Park "Toilet Safety Administration" episode ;D

 ;D

Look, there's a limit to the crap is ok to post in a bitcoin forum, just because somehow that so called "assassination market" operates in bitcoins.

Nuclear weapons are built with fiat. Should people start littering financial forums with WMD discussions?

which site are we talking about?
and this would make someone kill someone to win a bet, damn :D
Illegal stuff, we don't need any more of those on bitcoin altough it would give a pump on the price :D

My opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z2iiinNIl0


Emphasis mine.

Both statements could be true. If he actually pays the money to the killer(s) he is a maniac. If he doesn't, he is a hero. He would steal money from the killer and from people who wanted to pay to see someone dead. It will lead to big skepticism of people who actually uses assassination market, making it more likely people would not use it anymore. Then it would be a win-win situation.

Isn't the poor person who got killed sort of a loser here?  "Win win" but surely not for the actual person who is being killed?

I think it's important for Bitcoin users to have this conversation. As a new technology that enables lots of new things, Bitcoin and its users are under the spotlight. It's not like gun crime, where the inventors can't be blamed posthumously because they didn't foresee all of the problems with their inventions. Bitcoin development is still in progress, it's a group experiment, and maybe it can be steered in some way to improve the balance of good versus bad?

Even if it seems obvious to us that nothing practical can done to prevent some new crimes because any "cure" would be worse than the disease, we don't know that without discussing it. Every time we find out about some new downside, we should ask ourselves: is it still worth the trouble?

The online discussion itself is also important evidence for outsiders that proves that we're nice, caring humans who care about life and stuff, not just about money or getting rich.

Killing someone is just going to give them heaven earlier than you.  Your money would be better spent towards the actual physical manifestation of peace that I engage in.

The results are not what i suspected.
Well , isn't he a hero , giving power to the people? :D

Chiming in as an an-capper. While there is a part of me that likes the idea, it is the vengeful and illogical part. It cannot work because it relies on a God figure. Without the site's leader's pledge to stick only to people who have actually done harm to society, it could easily be a corrupt catch-all murder-for-hire, and that's impossible to know or enforce. But that's just a practical matter of enforcing the site's own stated morality. It certainly doesn't actually abide by the NAP. It's a stretch of logic to apply it here.

Such an extension of the NAP would basically have to state, "anyone who is not actively against those who would coerce me is complicit in the coercion." This is a stretch even when there is direct proximity: The NAP would support the shooting of Kitty Genovese's rapist but not, traditionally, the observers who neither defend nor attack her. While I absolutely support the sentiment that one must consider that such acts are only possible when "good" onlookers do nothing, my NAP framework does not classify the onlooker as equal in guilt to the actual perpetrator.

This "Death Note" situation (anyone who hasn't seen that anime should -- get the Japanese version with English subs -- it's highly relevant) is one in which the observers are removed even further from the action. Politicians are vaguely aware of policies harming people at times, but even the worst of them generally think they're accomplishing good things that need doing. Maybe even Bernanke, who knows? He could be just a die-hard Keynesian. I cannot endorse assassinating fools for being fools, not at this stage in human evolution. It would also seem to me that by the same logical extension, everyone, every neighbor and friend, who has voted them in, or even those who didn't but simply have not armed themselves with pitchforks and begun the revolution, are also complicit. No, logically, the Assassination Market doesn't fit within the NAP at all.

That's not to say there aren't interesting arguments about "greater good" to be had, but, again, those always require a God substitute, and don't fit within the NAP. And like many things that come down to doing a "little bad" for the "greater good" to prevent larger "bad" -- the whole, burn a village to save it bit -- it is almost always a subconsciously lazy way of not continuing on searching for a path which is even less harmful. For example, after the markets crashed, we might have torched the fed, hung Bernanke, and every other banker we can find... but instead we have created this ecosystem around Bitcoin. We may be able to subvert their entire system, all without raising a finger. It may not always be that easy, but it is lazy to resort to violence by default.

It's the politics/society forum?

I realize I don't come on here much, but why is this not acceptable here?

I cannot believe that anyone would send bitcoins (thus implicating themselves in a crime) to have someone assassinated. Remember, bitcoins aren't untraceable, and the likelihood that that is "legitimate" is laughable. If you're going to throw away your money, donate it to this poor guy right here.

People in this forum disagree all day long about how to have a better society and more effective politics.

An assassination market doesn't fit into anyone's idea of a better society.

I'll tell you why it won't catch on, someone could place a bounty on the site for the site operator and then pay a bonus if they kill any extra staff and they wouldn't be able to run the site anymore after a simple DDOS attack. It would admittedly be pretty easy to pay somebody for an assassination in Bitcoin just because of how easy it is to stay anonymous, don't know why this site operator thinks they're clever by putting it up.

What is "this"? This debate? It is, that's why we're having it here, in this subforum. The concept of a crypto-funded death note itself? That's what's being debated. Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking.

 
Well, as we always say, Bitcoin is only as anonymous as the user makes it. Yeah, I could see someone making a really stupid choice that wasn't anonymous at all. I also have concerns that a stolen wallet traceable to an individual could be used as a setup. How's that for a way to get rid of the boss you hate who's always blathering about how rich Bitcoin made him? Access his wallet and fund the presidential hit order?

I... don't even... what. How do you suppose that might work, exactly?

Easy, just PM the people you see on the site or use a private chat :P needs to be encrypted of course.

the most sophomoric idea ever