Silkroad: good/bad/indifferent

[Nesetalis]

transaction fees are purely freemarket as well, each pool can choose how low they will accept of fees.

however, how the hell do you think you can determine if address A sending 10 BTC to address C is buying porn or alpaca socks?

there is no possible way in this incarnation of bitcoin.

[1713988493]

1713988493

[1713988493]

1713988493

[1713988493]

1713988493

[Jdumond]

transaction fees are purely freemarket as well, each pool can choose how low they will accept of fees.

however, how the hell do you think you can determine if address A sending 10 BTC to address C is buying porn or alpaca socks?

there is no possible way in this incarnation of bitcoin.

-Which proves why the government would want to shut it down, bc they cannot trace who, what where when and why?

 -My computer either directly or indirectly contributes to the transaction, My having bitcoins builds their value to a point that people can buy porn, weapons, whatever with them. In some way or another if we are involved in bitcoin you are contributing to this practice. Whether directly or indirectly, with or without knowledge. Eventually there will be a disaster, something horrible will happen to someone bitcoin will be mentioned, and it will be over. I dont state this as fact just as opinion.

[Nesetalis]

you're logic is heavily flawed, because if you truly believed that, you would throw away every single bit of money you had irl. Because one way or another it all touches the USD, which is the primary drive behind the drug wars in mexico and south america. Thousands of people each year killed raped and tortured, and all of it paid for in the US Dolar. All of it worth something because of the trust in the US Dolar.

[Jdumond]

you're logic is heavily flawed, because if you truly believed that, you would throw away every single bit of money you had irl. Because one way or another it all touches the USD, which is the primary drive behind the drug wars in mexico and south america. Thousands of people each year killed raped and tortured, and all of it paid for in the US Dolar. All of it worth something because of the trust in the US Dolar.

Yes, but they KNOW that an attempt to regulate it, albeit not effectively.

They dont atttempt to regulate bitcoin.

My argument is that regulation is coming, and silkroad is the channel/justification they would use.

which is bad.


I appreciate you bringing up these points, they are valid and as with any coin (bitcoin joke?) there are always two sides

[mascotte]

long live the free world!

[Nesetalis]

they may or may not try to regulate bitcoin, but remember, bitcoin surpasses country lines. If they succeed in regulating bitcoin, it will mean the death of bitcoin more than likely, and something else will take its place.

[TradersEdgeDice]

Why are you worried at all what government or industry does about bitcoin?

This isn't the neophyte days of napster.  Assuming the creators are not scam artists, governments and banks and industry will not be able to do anything.

The U.S.  likes to use a heavy hand.  In the sixties, they were freezing Russian assets left and right.  The Russians responded by creating the Eurodollar market.

A really dangerous idea…  They would set up a system where one currency could be instantly exchanged for another currency.  Fast forward to the very late nineties and you have the dawn of FX markets for individual investors.

Governments do not dare to talk about currency or it will be punished by traders worldwide.  They have no more control over the value of money.  They still have influence but control has been out the window for awhile.

Who knows where this will lead?

It's obvious that the U.S.  secures their reserve currency status from the petrodollar.  I think they are more concerned about the unofficial narco dollar that would vanish with bitcoin.

Drug cartels keep liquidity in the U.S. dollar.  Very sad but completely true.

[Jdumond]

Why are you worried at all what government or industry does about bitcoin?

This isn't the neophyte days of napster.  Assuming the creators are not scam artists, governments and banks and industry will not be able to do anything.

The U.S.  likes to use a heavy hand.  In the sixties, they were freezing Russian assets left and right.  The Russians responded by creating the Eurodollar market.

A really dangerous idea…  They would set up a system where one currency could be instantly exchanged for another currency.  Fast forward to the very late nineties and you have the dawn of FX markets for individual investors.

Governments do not dare to talk about currency or it will be punished by traders worldwide.  They have no more control over the value of money.  They still have influence but control has been out the window for awhile.

Who knows where this will lead?

It's obvious that the U.S.  secures their reserve currency status from the petrodollar.  I think they are more concerned about the unofficial narco dollar that would vanish with bitcoin.

Drug cartels keep liquidity in the U.S. dollar.  Very sad but completely true.

Bitcoin is a commodity as there is no backing. Governments wont talk about a currency no, but if illegal items and practices are happening because of the movement of this commodity they will act.


I believe the arguement centralizes around bitcoin = currency or bitcoin - commodity which has definitely been discussed on the forums.

[duckfeet]

I think it's good.  Why do people care.  Is btc money or it some kind of moral statement?  Libertarians like me are happy to get us unhooked from the Fed...you *know* they will freak if the the big dope movers start moving massive amounts of btc.  This is like linux users getting their feelings hurt because somebody's writing malware in linux.  Who cares? 

Matter of fact, if the underground economy really starts using btc in a serious way--they haven't yet--it'll change the world, and rock the system...yay!!!

[VuhNilla]

Commodity, currency, luxury item, it doesn't matter, because each of those hold value. People don't go to tiffany's in New York to buy a luxury ring for $0.25, if that were the case there wouldn't be blood on the left hand ring finger of most people in the world (take a look into blood diamonds).

The fact is, that anywhere there is value there will be the underside that is crawling with maggots, and wherever a market exists, a sub-market will THRIVE.

Look at the pharmaceutical industry, a large majority of medications are opiates or narcotics, which if it weren't for the business interests wouldn't exist on an open market, seeing how they are schedule 1 drugs according to the dea (a substance with no known medical value), and this marketing of an addictive substance, albeit regulated has brought us a wonderful "epidemic" of pharma-drug abuse, and a sub-market where a $50 month of medicine ($3 if you get a generic through wal-mart) can fetch you on up to $1000, if not more depending on your area, and how tight the local doctors are on giving out prescriptions for those substances.

Why would anyone think that something with market value like bitcoin would somehow magically completely evade the sub-market (or, if you haven't caught the drift, blackmarket) if you can trade your pain pills for illegal substances (I've known dealers who would gladly take a handful of Oxycontin for a quarter of weed).

Narcotics are already regulated to the Nth degree, and all that did was increase the value of these substances. Marijuana is regulated (by prohibition, which tries to control the rate of production and sale in a submarket), and a plant is worth more than any other flower, including the tulip in 17th century holland. So, why would the regulation of bitcoin's outcome be any different?

Where there is demand, there is value, and if the demand cannot be met by traditional means, it will be met one way or the other, period.

Silk road is a manifestation of this, and it is perfectly natural.

Think of the bitcoin as a leaf, if they make them illegal, how do you get rid of them? Cut down all the trees (or get rid of the internet?)?

[BCEmporium]

For me is a good/bad thing. Has both.

Good:

It put bitcoin all over the news.

Bad:

Dragged some unwanted attention and a lot of fallacies along. Like linking btc to drugs, what would we say about USD on such grounds them? Most of the drug trade in the World is done by using USD.
Another was the hysterical or World unawareness reaction of the senators. "Drugs will flood our streets". No? Really? Aren't they already? And way way before bitcoin?

Personally bad for me:

The spikes on btc value, even if good for the coins I still have, made most of my ideas to hang while see how this will settle.
Found out also that Silk Road was using MyBitcoin, which freaked me out a bit, once I store my coins there too, as I'm not generating anymore, leaving me open to withdraw tainted coins. Add to this that the last time I'd to re-download the blockchain to my local client only 0.03 of my btc were generated by me, all other thousands of coins are away from daddy, lost in the World, and this also means I've no clue where the coins I'm holding came from or who are their daddies.

[Vinnie]

Good thing. The Feds will be coming after bitcoin eventually, with or without a drug market operating. Bring it on, bitches.

[caveden]

The Feds will be coming after bitcoin eventually, with or without a drug market operating. Bring it on, bitches.

This is probably true. All this mumbling about illegal trading and money laundering are merely excuses.

[Modoki]

you are right dudes. what the two above me said.

[rebuilder]

Where's the "it's inevitable" option?

If people can buy something with Bitcoin easier or safer than with other currencies, they are going to do so. "Good or bad for Bitcoin" doesn't enter into it. I don't see why you even bother to get riled up about something you can do nothing about.

[Meatball]

I'm probably between Indifferent to Bad.  Indifferent because I could care less what people do with their BTC, but Bad because it's drawing negative attention to Bitcoins. 

[Reikoku]

I don't do drugs any more, but I don't think Silk Road is a bad thing. At the end of the day, the governments war on drugs is completely unreasonable, and Silk Road is just one of many mechanisms against it. Most of these mechanisms do not involve any Bitcoin, so the MSMs attempt to align Bitcoin with drugs is proposterous. At the end of the day, if we want to associate things with what they finance, Bitcoin finances drugs; Dollars finance wars, murder, rape, exploitation, child abuse, drugs...

I wouldn't necessarily say Silk Road is great. I wouldn't use it, but I don't wish any bad upon those who choose to.

[NoValues]

As soon as we start deciding what is and what isnt okay to sell for bitcoins
we may as well stop using since the original idea for a decentralized currency will be defeated.

[rebuilder]

As soon as we start deciding what is and what isnt okay to sell for bitcoins
we may as well stop using since the original idea for a decentralized currency will be defeated.

If that idea can be defeated, it will be defeated. The point is, we don't have the ability to decide what can or can't be traded for Bitcoin. This is all just pointless jabbering.

[justusranvier]

Consider two scenarios:

A politician becomes aware of a new technology that is capable of enabling instant, anonymous transfers of bribes and kickbacks. Upon considering the implications of this development he -

a) immediately marshals the resources of the State to eliminate this software are quickly and thoroughly as possible.
b) is overcome with a sudden surge of appreciation for the free market and proposes only token, ineffective regulation, if any.

Which scenario requires less suspension of disbelief?