Do you see Silk Road's closure as a positive or negative?

[tearfereon]

It's great. Another challenge we passed. I was worried that bitcoin economy is working only due to black market but now it's ok because even if that was true, nobody can destroy it -> stable price.

This

I was nicely surprised the price recovered soooo fast

[1715106634]

1715106634

[darkmule]

Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchy actually means "without rulers". That's it.

That's not what it's meant throughout its history as a word in the English language.  In fact, the word having any positive connotations at all is a novelty.

[shuttleclock]

Should be positive in a long run.
As for now, at least more people come to realize in the existence of Bitcoin.. although they may consider Bitcoin as "currency mostly for buying drugs". Well, I hope they will eventually google it to be informed better.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/10/09/living-with-ross-ulbricht-housemates-say-they-saw-no-clues-of-silk-road-or-the-dread-pirate-roberts/

Lol, I guess it's not like he will brags to anyone about being a mastermind of one of the biggest drug market 

[Operatr]

I think ultimately it's a good thing. The SR closure has dispelled the notion that Bitcoin is only a thing because of the drug market, and the wide spread coverage of this story has seemed to be fairly neutral of Bitcoin. The market certainly did react with a little sell off, but historically is negligible.  Hopefully this leads to a better perception of Bitcoin as an authentic currency, and that its prominence is not driven solely by the Internet black market as was once believed. It was an important moment that Bitcoin is holding steady after Silk Road went down.

Plus, Dread Pirate Roberts was an idiot of the highest caliber and is the sole reason for Silk Roads downfall. He only got busted because he made a bunch of careless mistakes easily tracked by the FBI. The technology that drove Silk Road however works perfectly, and SRs closure was not the result of the FBI breaking TOR or Bitcoin security, but simple police work accomplished with a few warrants and basic deductive reasoning.

There are already several copycat sites in the works to replace SR, and I doubt they will be as careless as DPR. The FBI "victory" will be short lived.

[Coingrounds]

I think when people saw the price change wasn't that drastic post SR... that's a good thing. I've often heard speculators say how black market transactions contribute to the majority of the BTC ecosystem.

[darkmule]

Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

[hayek]

Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

  1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

Man do you know what etymology is?

https://www.google.com/search?q=etomology+anarchy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#channel=fflb&q=etymology+anarchy&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1

Read a book.

[Carlton Banks]

Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

Could it be possible that the early published definitions were themselves politicised? Old documents are not quite as good as the documentary evidence we can summon up from, say, the 20th century. It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage that were traditionally kept under tight control.

[darkmule]

Could it be possible that the early published definitions were themselves politicised? Old documents are not quite as good as the documentary evidence we can summon up from, say, the 20th century. It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage that were traditionally kept under tight control.

Perhaps, but the OED is generally pretty good at getting earlier usages of words, if not always at getting the very first use.  The examples from the OED generally reflect standard use of the time, not oddball uses that would have been out of the norm even then.

And to the idiot before you, of course I know what etymology is.  I also know what the ignore button is, and it's been used.  I was discussing usage, since that was being discussed, not etymology, since that wasn't.

[jbreher]

Of course, rulers don't want you to know that you don't need them! Language is a powerful tool. Adding chaos to the definition of anarchy implies, anytime the word is used, that people need rulers. A simple change has a drastic effect. Anyone claiming to be an anarchist is a lunatic who wants to tear down civilization!

It was never "added."  It was essentially the original definition.  While all it means, literally, is "absence of government," the negative connotations have been there since at least 1539.

   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.    1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.    1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy.    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.    1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things.    1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

From the OED's usage list.

It is only very recently, as in the 20th Century, that the term has been appropriated and repackaged in a positive sense, with mixed success at best.

I see very little in your quotes that would equate anarchy with chaos, death, doom , destruction, floods, plagues, locusts, dogs and cats sleeping together....

Let's examine them one by one, shall we?

   1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.

I suppose in today's vernacular, that would be 'unlawful liberty or license'. Yeah, so what? The condition of having no law that otherwise restricts it, is definitive of liberty. And as license is permission from so-called 'authority' to do something that would otherwise be unlawful, this makes sense - no 'authority', no license required. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

   1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion.   

If anarchy _was_ confusion by definition, it would not have to be called out separately, now would it? Further, as the USC runs tens of thousands of pages, and the CFR is many times that, there is no way any person could even begin to understand the totality of 'law' which might apply to them. I put forth the assertion that this is definitively confusion. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

  1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy. 

Well, duh. No Head, no ruler. No ruler, an archis. Anarchy. mere definition - so what? I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

    1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy.  .

This seems a non sequitur. If there is a state of anarchy, there is no 'government', as we know the term. Or perhaps Burke is actually indicting government - merely pointing out that government uses the term 'anarchy' as a scapegoat do misdirect the public from understanding that it is the government's own actions that have brought calamity upon the populace. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

   1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things. 

There are two things here. The first is saying that 'the absence of true sovereigns necessitates anarchy'. There are further two replies to this first clause. The first of these replies is that this is a simple definition - assuming by 'sovereign', he means 'rulers'. The second reply to this first clause is that, under anarchy, one could consider each and every individual to be sovereign. If one adopts this definition, his statement does not make sense. To his second clause, he is merely rendering an unsupported opinion. I personally consider national socialism to be pretty damn hateful - but millions used to be adherents. Again, I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

   1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy.

Again, merely the word used in its proper context. No king, no ruler, an archis, anarchy. I still don't see dogs and cats sleeping together.

While I grant that for much of my lifetime, much of the populace has equated 'anarchy' with the throwing of molotov cocktails, I see nothing in your quoted material that would indicate it was ever so.

[gnix72]

I don't care what society you live in, they all have laws and rules, the only anarchy you can have is the one you make for yourself.  Anything that facilitates commerce, freedom, and such while obeying laws and rules is good, anything that breaks laws and rules is bad.

Now...if we don't like some of those rules, well then we need to change them.  I'm no fan of over-regulation and micromanagement of our lives, but that's not bitcoin's fault, that's our fault for losing control of our governments, and we should fight hard to get that back.  But this is about bitcoin, as a long term means to that end in my view.  If we truly want bitcoin to succeed, and I think we do, then it has to be legitimate.  For it to be legitimate, it must be crime-resistant (nothing is crime proof) and must frown on exposed illegal activity.

I'm not for anarchy, but I'm certainly for a lot less government and a lot more freedom in our lives.  But again, that's not bitcoins fault that we let our government slip into a soft tyranny.  Hopefully when bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, we will take at least two tools of government force away permanently, namely bad fiscal and bad monetary policy.

[Carlton Banks]

Could it be possible that the early published definitions were themselves politicised? Old documents are not quite as good as the documentary evidence we can summon up from, say, the 20th century. It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage that were traditionally kept under tight control.

Perhaps, but the OED is generally pretty good at getting earlier usages of words, if not always at getting the very first use.  The examples from the OED generally reflect standard use of the time, not oddball uses that would have been out of the norm even then.

Yes...... I'm not sure you've fully absorbed the point I was making. To paraphrase:

Could it be possible that the Oxford English Dictionary definitions were themselves politicised? It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage etc etc

[darkmule]

Could it be possible that the Oxford English Dictionary definitions were themselves politicised? It's not only the printing presses for money and coinage etc etc

These weren't definitions, but examples of usage, generally from well-regarded sources, i.e. people who could be expected to use words correctly.

The actual definition is neutral, as they usually are.

1. a.1.a Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

Of course, even here, it is defined using words which themselves generally have negative connotations, such as "lawlessness" and "disorder."  I would argue the first to attempt to carry out anarchistic political action, identifying it as such, would be certain of the French Revolutionaries, and the first serious attempt to put an intellectual foundation to it and explicitly endorse the term would be Bakunin (although other thinkers had of course contemplated the issue).

My point, and I am surprised it is even arousing any controversy whatsoever, is that through the vast majority of the history of the word, it has carried almost exclusively negative connotations, and even to this day, the majority of usage of the word is intended to refer to something negative.  The difference is that at least since Bakunin, there have always serious philosophical proponents of the concept, as distinguished from, say, teenage punk rockers using the anarchy symbol for shock value (not to say that punks have never had serious ideas).

[panck4beer]

I think when people saw the price change wasn't that drastic post SR... that's a good thing. I've often heard speculators say how black market transactions contribute to the majority of the BTC ecosystem.

Thats true, most fear Bitcoin is just for black market transactions. Feds made great service to Bitcoin adoption, so definitively positive news

[Welsh]

It's good. Even if it reduces the amount of people interested in Bitcoin. We should no longer be tainted by the market.

[darkmule]

It's good. Even if it reduces the amount of people interested in Bitcoin. We should no longer be tainted by the market.

If anything, I've seen a slight uptick in interest.  For that matter, even to get "Silk Road" as a "suggested" search term, I have to add an "s" after Bitcoin, and then it appears near the bottom.

[genjix]

Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

What? Who's going to help you survive without the daddy state to look after you? Lemme guess, you're going to run for the hills with your dog and your shotgun.

[cowandtea]

Negative, now people relate drugs to bitcoin...

[darkmule]

Negative, now people relate drugs to bitcoin...

People already did, largely because of Silk Road.  While I am by no means on the "oh noooo, drugs, horror!" bandwagon, that kind of thing is definitely an impediment to mainstream acceptance.  I think the fact that Bitcoin itself basically responded with a collective "meh" to shutting down Silk Road shows pretty clearly that Bitcoin and the drug trade are two separate things.

If the shutdown increased the perception that Bitcoin=drugs, there would have been a long-lasting decline in price as investors and users fled for the hills.  Nothing of the sort happened.

If Bitcoin being seen as related to drugs is a problem (though I think it is more neutral), then Silk Road actually being in operation contributed to that a lot more than it being shut down.

I don't think SR being shut down is a fantastic thing.  It disrupted a lot of economic activity, even if that activity was illegal.  It also, apparently, has taken about 5% of existing BTC out of circulation for the foreseeable future, and maybe forever (though this reduction in supply might have helped stabilize the price).  But it is hardly a disaster, even for the Bitcoin drug trade.

[alkaz]

personally, for me its a good thing they close it.