People think because they have a high IQ and they're on the Internet that they're somehow invulnerable.

They end up thinking they're Walter White when they're Moe, Larry or Curly.

Anyone who sets up something called Silk Road 3 is just begging for it, because that name alone is like waving a red flag.

Because of the amount of drugs involved, even with small profits for that amount, these idiots are going to be facing "kingpin" sentencing enhancements, some of which basically result in a mandatory minimum of LIFE.  All so they could play badass drug kingpin on the Internet.

This might be the last big seizure/auction of this sort, if sites now realize the necessity of adopting multi-signature transactions.

Incidentally, these busts do show one thing others would be wise to acknowledge.  Opening and operating a site overtly dedicated to selling drugs and other illegal commodities, and doing anything to further such transactions, and doing anything that remotely smacks of actually knowingly getting a cut of illegal proceeds, is going to paint a big red target on your back.

Maybe those who do this can manage to evade prosecution for a while, but if their identity is exposed, they are going to be subject to the draconian penalties any drug dealer faces, including life imprisonment or (in some jurisdictions) the death penalty.

Compare to those who currently distribute things like BitTorrent software.  This has legitimate non-copyright-infringing uses, and the current vendors of such products studiously avoid the kind of stupid rhetoric you hear out of people pimping their drug sites.

Compare to Napster, which openly participated in copyright infringement and was easily shut down.  But then compare to the P2P stuff that followed like Grokster and Limewire, which sold software with legitimate uses, but also spouted all kinds of dumb rhetoric and had internal emails showing that they too were basically encouraging copyright infringement.  They too were held liable.

The common thread in all these busts is site operators dipping their hands into the pool of tainted drug money.  Once they did that any rhetoric about freedom is basically just bullshit.  They're just drug dealers like any other at that point.

The only kind of site like this that stands any chance of withstanding legal scrutiny and/or prosecution is one that does not explicitly exist for illegal purposes, and also doesn't basically act like a bank of sorts, subjecting it to financial regulations.  If one legally provides a service with substantial legitimate uses, and it just happens to be able to be used for illegal purposes, and does not oneself participate in those activities, that is always going to be a good defense.

Even that dimbulb Schumer admits that the first Silk Road bust has actually just made the situation more difficult, by causing a proliferation of smaller sites.

It's like stomping a puffball mushroom.  You may feel as if you have defeated mushrooms in that moment, but wait until the morning.

But that's wrong, and you equivocate to make your bogus argument seem correct.  Your first example would be why use BITCOIN.  Not why use "bitcoins."

Bitcoin itself is under the control of no central authority.

However, anyone can use "bitcoins," even a central authority.  That doesn't mean they control the protocol or the currency itself, but that just like anyone else, there is no way to exclude them from being a player in the marketplace.  However you get control of individual units of currency, you are capable of doing with them what you choose.

How is that "unique?"  Unique means one of a kind.  If what you're saying is true, there was literally no trade in illicit goods and services before cryptocurrency because that is "unique" to cryptocurrency.

If anything, the nonrepudiability of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies makes it, at best, no better for selling illicit goods and services than plain old paper currency, which unlike cryptocurrency, has no memory.

What a fucking shocker.  Wake us up at some ungodly fucking hour for some shit that isn't going to happen.

What a shocker.  Where are the defenders of these crooks now?  I guess somewhere off with the defenders of pirateat40, BFL, Mt. Gox and all the other Bitcoin scammers out there giving Bitcoin a shit name.

Do it faggot.

Plus the pot-limit structure makes it easier to actually exploit this information by whipsawing a player in between colluders.

It would be pretty dumb regardless.  He has very little to sue over.  Unless he is a completely private individual whose seclusion has been invaded, he has nothing.

You are not "defamed" by basically being outed as a genius who created a world-changing technology.  How does this make you look bad?

If he is a private individual, he probably has a cause of action for something like invasion of privacy or negligent infliction of emotional distress, which let's face it, are really pussy causes of action.  Who the fuck sues over shit like that other than some special snowflake?

Also, whether or not he's "the" Satoshi (and I am really thinking that story is bullshit at this point) he has taught me a valuable life lesson.  If you are ever being interviewed by some asshole, DEMAND A FREE LUNCH.  I am definitely doing this if it ever happens to me.

What's funny is Jimbo Wales professes a libertarian philosophy, but ran Wikipedia like a tinpot dictator for years.  Don't get me even started on the pseudolegal nonsense that is the "Arbitration Committee," which is basically a collection of degenerates and lunatics that make the attendees of a furry convention look normal.

Probably just saved you two ridiculous suckouts anyway.

Buffett's investment strategy is such he'd probably survive anything short of a world-ending catastrophe.  It's very often based on companies that have physical infrastructure that would still be worth something even if, say, the dollar itself collapsed.  He's also pragmatic enough to be aware he's not going to be alive for much longer, and isn't going to go for investments that require micro-managing them.  Bitcoin is highly volatile, whatever else you might say about it, and requires you pay attention to it.  Being dead isn't conducive to that.

I think he is in error basically disparaging it as an asset, but I can see where he's coming from.  We're really not the audience he's aiming his advice at, though, and it's probably reasonably good advice to that older audience.  It's generally good advice not to invest in something you don't understand, and if you're older and haven't been familiar with the concept of cryptocurrency since the 90s or so, you probably do not understand Bitcoin.

Hey also, do you have a bulk deal for removing all kitty cats?

To an extent, libertarianism is built into the technology itself, so anyone using it is adopting at least some of the ideology.  After all, Bitcoin wouldn't work without consensus.

However, if it's going to impact society, we're pretty much at the tipping point here.  When hundreds of millions in fiat start disappearing into a vacuum, society (or more specifically government) starts to get concerned, and ongoing incidents like Gox are more or less forcing the hand of law enforcement.  A few million disappearing into a Ponzi scheme like pirateat40's can be disregarded as Wild West phenomena.  Something like Gox can't.

Either Bitcoin is going to self-regulate on a voluntary, consensus-based approach, or the Bad Guys (the government) are going to step in.  And they're going to fuck it up and do it badly, like they do most things.

This.  My chat on Seals is 10x better after enabling this.  Also, block observer chat if you get bored of crybaby bitches you just knocked out of a tournament.

You sound so amazingly cool.  I bet you have a whole basement full of fedoras, you fuck.

Often, even the good players play freerolls like the 1.25 like goddamn idiots, just for the hell of it.  So it really depends how seriously they're taking it at the time.

Personally, I often play these things like a total moron just to bad beat people and watch them flip out.

I'll just repeat what I said.  I think it stands on its own.  If you say "provably fair," the only proper response to "okay, prove it" is to go the fuck ahead and prove it.  Not to start bitching and complaining and start hurling ad hominem, and censoring your thread.