Senator Charles Schumer Pushes to Shut Down Online Drug Marketplace

[Steve]

This is an absolutely terrible way for Bitcoin to break out. I was at least hoping firstly we were going to see articles about the positives of Bitcoin before we started seeing about the illegal stuff. Everything we've been working on for months has been to protect Bitcoin from attack. Things like this are frightening if this is a prophecy of future news reporting on Bitcoin.

Please be only a one time thing.

I talk about bitcoin a lot in my circle of friends...I do it not because I want to convince them to use bitcoins (although that would be great), but because I want to prepare them for the inevitable propaganda against bitcoin that the banksters and their politicians will spread.  This was only a matter of time and everyone should have expected it, but people armed with the truth won't be so convinced by such propaganda.  I suggest people do likewise with their friends...the more people that know someone that is using bitcoins for honest and legal trade, the less likely it is that bitcoin will suffer at the hands of politicians (of course, in the long run, I believe bitcoin survives regardless...it's just 5 or 10 years of hassle I'd like to avoid so that we can get on with inventing the future).

[kleek]

there already is another .onion drug market that accepts Bitcoin

http://g7pz322wcy6jnn4r.onion/opensource/ovdb/ac/index.php

it has been around since about the same time as Silk Road. Vendors take more than bitcoin, some take liberty reserve and tons of other payment methods.

[Gavin Andresen]

Ian:

Great letter! I agree that the "stop campaigning for bitcoin's destruction" message might backfire, and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here." You might even offer to help law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.


I've been thinking of how to react to this story, and am tempted to appeal to people's greed/fear with a message of "your country may miss out on a huge new opportunity and be left behind if you try to stamp out innovative new technologies like bitcoin."

[Phenomenon]

Ian:

Great letter! I agree that the "stop campaigning for bitcoin's destruction" message might backfire, and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here." You might even offer to help law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.


I've been thinking of how to react to this story, and am tempted to appeal to people's greed/fear with a message of "your country may miss out on a huge new opportunity and be left behind if you try to stamp out innovative new technologies like bitcoin."

If law enforcement can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals using bitcoin they will have effectively proved that bitcoin's implementation does not provide adequate anonymity or security. Whether or not you agree with what certain people do with bitcoin, it's purpose is to prevent ANY central authority from having control over the financial system.  This includes governments.  If a government has a way to prevent, manipulate, or track transactions at will, then bitcoin will have no purpose whatsoever.

However, if law enforcement attempts to develop such tools and techniques to track down "criminals" and do not succeed, it will only reinforce trust in the bitcoin implementation.

[matonis]

...and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here."

+1  Definitely, the correct approach. In the end, bitcoin's resilience will be proven with or without certain types of transactions. Money does not make any statement on morality. An "innocent" payment system cannot be held accountable anymore than an "innocent" $100 bill can be held accountable. Unfortunately, payment systems are unfairly attacked because it is the path of least resistance for enforcement, as in the case of the recent US online poker shutdown. Digital tracking tends to make this easier when money is involved.

However, the benefit to society as a whole, and ultimately our freedom, requires that we maintain efficient payment systems, efficient telephone networks, and efficient postal networks, even if those same networks are used for things that certain people oppose.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I've been thinking of how to react to this story, and am tempted to appeal to people's greed/fear with a message of "your country may miss out on a huge new opportunity and be left behind if you try to stamp out innovative new technologies like bitcoin."

This is a plain fact that should be obvious.
They need to consult with some "trusted" Silicon Valley vets if they cannot see this.

Worth repeating for sure, but it may be a case of "there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear", I hope not.

[matonis]

However, if law enforcement attempts to develop such tools and techniques to track down "criminals" and do not succeed, it will only reinforce trust in the bitcoin implementation.

+1  I have been thinking this exact thought. A few may be prosecuted, as with copyright infringement, because they posted their "one and only" bitcoin address on their blog or Facebook page.  Ultimately, this episode will result in a greater understanding of how to practice safe bitcoining.

[Timo Y]

If law enforcement can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals using bitcoin they will have effectively proved that bitcoin's implementation does not provide adequate anonymity or security.

I disagree.

Just like Tor, bitcoin can never be 100% anonymous. An investigation team with enough manpower and time on its hands can track down any bitcoin user, with one exception: The bitcoin user who never spends a single bitcent in his wallet.dat.  But what use are bitcoins if you can't spend them?

However it is anonymous enough for most people going about their daily honest business.  Discovering the identity of bitcoin users takes a large amount of resources, so governemnt will only ever bother going after serious criminals, while ordinary people can enjoy the benefits of financial privacy.

Whether or not you agree with what certain people do with bitcoin, it's purpose is to prevent ANY central authority from having control over the financial system.  This includes governments.  If a government has a way to prevent, manipulate, or track transactions at will, then bitcoin will have no purpose whatsoever.

They can't control Bitcoin itself. All they can do is prevent selected individuals from spending their bitcoins using traditional police work.

[benjamindees]

Bitcoin is equivalent to cash.

Refer to him as "The Senator from Wall Street" a few times.

No other response is really necessary.

[beeph]

I can see it now... untouchables raiding poor hicks in the south... is that a 5800x gpu i see?
BIT-LEGGERS!!! smash the BIT-STILL!!

[Phenomenon]

If law enforcement can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals using bitcoin they will have effectively proved that bitcoin's implementation does not provide adequate anonymity or security.

I disagree.

Just like Tor, bitcoin can never be 100% anonymous. An investigation team with enough manpower and time on its hands can track down any bitcoin user, with one exception: The bitcoin user who never spends a single bitcent in his wallet.dat.  But what use are bitcoins if you can't spend them?

However it is anonymous enough for most people going about their daily honest business.  Discovering the identity of bitcoin users takes a large amount of resources, so governemnt will only ever bother going after serious criminals, while ordinary people can enjoy the benefits of financial privacy.

Whether or not you agree with what certain people do with bitcoin, it's purpose is to prevent ANY central authority from having control over the financial system.  This includes governments.  If a government has a way to prevent, manipulate, or track transactions at will, then bitcoin will have no purpose whatsoever.

They can't control Bitcoin itself. All they can do is prevent selected individuals from spending their bitcoins using traditional police work.

If bitcoin performs as intended, then a bitcoin user who takes the proper precautions should be as difficult to track down as someone who uses cash.   Obviously with enough time, manpower, and resources, it is possible for a government to track down anyone doing anything.  However if it turns out that bitcoin itself can be used as a tool by the government to efficiently find "serious criminals", then it is not performing as intended.  

If they (a government, large organization, etc) can "prevent selected individuals from spending their bitcoins" as well as track transactions they disapprove of, then what advantage does bitcoin provide except a hedge against inflation?

[airdata]

I don't know how much letters work.  Special interests own a huge stake in policy making.

Also...if they try to spin this money laundering idea, wouldn't they also have to go after paypal?  I've wondered in the past how many people use ebay/paypal to launder money.

If you goto advanced search and look at completed items, you'll see a ton of rediculous listings.. .like $5000 iphones, $500 gift cards selling for $1000, etc.

[kokjo]

I actually agree that drugs should be legal and one should be allowed to ingest anything they please. But what should and shouldn't be has little to do with what IS and ISN'T. Drug trafficking IS illegal in the united states. This rich and powerful man now sees drugs and bitcoins as indivisible and mining and trading bitcoins as a criminal offense. He is actively trying to convince his rich and powerful friends of the same directly because of silk road. Silk road is a thread to the bitcoin network and I personally want to see it exterminated.

How about focusing on exterminating these rich and powerful people?

the rich and powerful people are old and they will be extinct in the next 10 years.
we who possess bitcoins will be the new rich and powerful people  

[stic.man]

I like the idea of offering campaign contribution in bitcoins (if it were legal)


Very difficult to say no to money, one thing all politicians have in common

I would imagine it's difficult to find a candidate that does not have traditional banking friends in high places though.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I like the idea of offering campaign contribution in bitcoins (if it were legal)


Very difficult to say no to money, one thing all politicians have in common

I would imagine it's difficult to find a candidate that does not have traditional banking friends in high places though.

Campaign contributions could be made completely anonymously with bitcoin.

Perhaps this is what has got the senator excited with the possibilities?

[stic.man]

I like the idea of offering campaign contribution in bitcoins (if it were legal)


Very difficult to say no to money, one thing all politicians have in common

I would imagine it's difficult to find a candidate that does not have traditional banking friends in high places though.

Campaign contributions could be made completely anonymously with bitcoin.

Perhaps this is what has got the senator excited with the possibilities?

Oh yeah, you brought up exactly why it might be a problem legally.  Thanks.

Maybe you'd have to sign a waiver saying that was your address and your BTC you just sent.  Even then I don't know how you would verify that.

[AllYourBase]

Ian:

Great letter! I agree that the "stop campaigning for bitcoin's destruction" message might backfire, and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here." You might even offer to help law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.


I've been thinking of how to react to this story, and am tempted to appeal to people's greed/fear with a message of "your country may miss out on a huge new opportunity and be left behind if you try to stamp out innovative new technologies like bitcoin."

If you're stance is seriously to encourage "help[ing] law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.", then you are a threat to the idea of bitcoin.  How can I have any confidence at all that you are not attempting to put some sort of backdoors into the client to monitor and track people who use bitcoin?

[matonis]

If they (a government, large organization, etc) can "prevent selected individuals from spending their bitcoins" as well as track transactions they disapprove of, then what advantage does bitcoin provide except a hedge against inflation?

I agree. If bitcoins only purpose/advantage is as an inflation-hedge, there are numerous things that would serve that function. The major differentiator, in fact the only differentiator that will have a significant impact on economic growth and taxation policy, is bitcoin's potential for user-determined anonymity and untracability.

[AtlasONo]

This should come as no surprise due to the very public nature of silk road.

You mess with the bull you get the horns. 

[matonis]

Ian:

Great letter! I agree that the "stop campaigning for bitcoin's destruction" message might backfire, and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here." You might even offer to help law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.

If you're stance is seriously to encourage "help[ing] law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.", then you are a threat to the idea of bitcoin.  How can I have any confidence at all that you are not attempting to put some sort of backdoors into the client to monitor and track people who use bitcoin?

I don't think that is what Gavin meant, because education works both ways.  For instance, you can point out the ridiculousness of relying on the bitcoin block explorer because bitcoin (private keys) can be exchanged offline on USB sticks or BitBills. Also, education on 'remailer' and 'mixers' would demonstrate to law enforcement that it is impractical to rely on the block chain.