Silk Road: anonymous marketplace. Feedback requested :)

[Goldenmaw]

I do not accept your answer, anisoptera.  I have nothing more to say to you, because it is obvious where your true loyalties lie.

[lemonginger]

As for the userbase statement, I'll bet you 5 BTC that if a poll were made in the general bitcoin forums about the motives driving individual interest in the bitcoin movement, the individuals interested in Bitcoins for black transactions would be outnumbered by the users interested in Bitcoins for either personal profit or ideological reasons by at least 3 to 1.  This thread sees a tremendous disparity of idealogy in favor of the black market simply because it is a thread about the black market Bitcoin economy, which uninterested parties aren't even going to take the time to read, much less post in.

That's irrelevant. I am not talking about these forums (how long do we really think all bitcoin users will be posting on these forums) but about potential for growth in the next 1-5 years. There IS a huge potential for BTC to be taken up to facilitate black/grey transactions, not as much other transactions (barring some huge collapse of some fiat currency).

But this whole discussion is irrelevant since I haven't heard any viable proposal of regulating bitcoins. You don't think a similar unregulated currency would pop up within a week? Even with internet gambling, the only reason it was able be regulated was because there were bank accounts to freeze. (Even there, arguably the bigger deal was that there was an incredible amount of money laundering going on, to the extent of actually buying banks to facilitate online poker transactions in the US).

Even if you do not accept my assertion, that as distasteful as it may be for some, black markets represent the greatest uptake potential of BTC (and not just drugs, but paying informants, bribes, weapons dealing, and prob even more unsavory market deals etc etc) there is simply no way to work around it.

and I don't nec think BTC will INCREASE this actual activity, it will just shift from cash and other payment methods towards BTC. In fact for some activities, it is likely to decrease overall levels of violence, etc just as any de facto decriminalization of an activity tends to.

If gov't really wants to capitalize on this, then will regulate and tax drugs and make it EASIER to buy drugs with your credit card at your local corner store much the way itunes has capitalized on music even in the realm of easy digital piracy.

[anisoptera]

I do not accept your answer, anisoptera.  I have nothing more to say to you, because it is obvious where your true loyalties lie.

"You didn't fall into my incredibly transparent and ill-thought-out trap by giving me the answer I wanted, and I can't defend my incredibly flimsy position, so I'm going to make a thinly-veiled "You just want to buy drugs" comment to discredit you."

Hint: the point of bitcoin is not to eliminate entities called "banks".

[Goldenmaw]

If gov't really wants to capitalize on this, then will regulate and tax drugs and make it EASIER to buy drugs with your credit card at your local corner store much the way itunes has capitalized on music even in the realm of easy digital piracy.

But they won't - nor do I think they have the initiative or the savvy to incorporate the tremendously beneficial changes that Bitcoins could usher in for this country, when it would be so much easier just to attack the people involved.  I consider Bitcoins and the United States too mutually incompatible in terms of ideologies to function together without compromises on both sides.  For this reason, Bitcoins presence here, in one of the world's largest economies, is ultimately doomed.

To those of you who believe that they won't find a way to stop us here, you sorely underestimate the dogged, blind ruthlessness that this country brings to bear when enforcing its ideologies.  Look at our jails, stuffed to capacity with good natured minor marijuana offenders if you need any evidence of this fanaticism.  As a citizen of the united states, I find all of this deeply disappointing - Bitcoins will thrive elsewhere, but I will not be able to partake in the movement for much longer without extensive risk to myself.

And you black marketeers, while you aren't the ultimate reason for Bitcoin's eventual local failure, you have the honor of being the first straw man they've set ablaze in what is - for now - strictly a PR war.

And anisoptera?  Spark up another doobie.  I've invented a new name for your kind on these boards - I'm calling you "Roadies" from here on out.

[anisoptera]

You don't think a similar unregulated currency would pop up within a week? Even with internet gambling, the only reason it was able be regulated was because there were bank accounts to freeze.

Exactly - the US government used its power over the financial institutions in the US to control the world economy in some way. It was able to prevent financial transactions between two independent parties from taking place because it did not find those transactions acceptable.

(Even there, arguably the bigger deal was that there was an incredible amount of money laundering going on, to the extent of actually buying banks to facilitate online poker transactions in the US).

The money laundering charges were just how the DOJ finally got something to go on, since online poker isn't actually illegal in the US.

The reason they cracked down on this so hard was because of corporate (casino) interests.


But yeah. Bitcoin would totally be better off regulated. We need someone to monitor our transactions and tell us when we're doing something wrong.

[anisoptera]

And anisoptera?  Spark up another doobie.

[Goldenmaw]

This is going to stun you, but I'm actually a long haired hippie, and I'm definitely pro-decriminalization.

[anisoptera]

This is going to stun you, but I'm actually a long haired hippie, and I'm definitely pro-decriminalization.

Oooh. Decriminalization. Long hair. Well, that lets all the air out of my arguments.

Which weren't about drugs. At all. And if you actually don't understand that, and aren't just trolling me, I'm really sorry for you.

Do you also think that free speech should be limited because the KKK might say something bad?

[lemonginger]

You don't think a similar unregulated currency would pop up within a week? Even with internet gambling, the only reason it was able be regulated was because there were bank accounts to freeze.

Exactly - the US government used its power over the financial institutions in the US to control the world economy in some way. It was able to prevent financial transactions between two independent parties from taking place because it did not find those transactions acceptable.

So, uh, yeah, see that's why I like bitcoin, because it eliminates their power to do that. You can't argue for regulation with one hand and then with the argue cry frustration about what happens when you allow that regulation.

The money laundering charges were just how the DOJ finally got something to go on, since online poker isn't actually illegal in the US.

The reason they cracked down on this so hard was because of corporate (casino) interests.

Nah, casinos gave up that canard a while ago. I think it was just as motivated by the fact that UIGEA created the incentives to essentially create giant black holes of fradulent transactions where anything could have been going on.

Bitcoin is, by its very nature, a giant black hole (spare me the discussion of a transparent block chain), so whether or not the silk road exists, it is a tremendous threat to the surveillance state. Again, how do you propose to regulate bitcoin? Pretend that I agreed with all your assertions 100% and was just saying okay, that sounds great, but how do we do it?

[anisoptera]

also, an interesting thing I just thought of.

In the US, the supreme court has ruled that money is speech. Corporations are allowed to give freely and anonymously to political causes, because money is speech; corporations have personhood; and people have the First Amendment right to free speech.


So if money is speech, and speech is supposed to be free of regulation by the government... why does Bitcoin need regulation?

Bitcoin is, by its very nature, a giant black hole (spare me the discussion of a transparent block chain), so whether or not the silk road exists, it is a tremendous threat to the surveillance state. Again, how do you propose to regulate bitcoin? Pretend that I agreed with all your assertions 100% and was just saying okay, that sounds great, but how do we do it?

I wasn't arguing with you. I'm not the one begging for regulation.

[lemonginger]

opps sorry anisoptera. totally read your response as coming from goldenmaw which was REALLY confusing me

I am still interested both in how you think this regulation occurs goldenmaw and how in our surveillance/police state that is, as you mentioned, stuffed to the gills with people incarcerated for growing or smoking a plant, you are going to convince the powers that be that they should embrace and regulate this new emerging technology and that it is not a threat to their power.

[Goldenmaw]

Oooh. Decriminalization. Long hair. Well, that lets all the air out of my arguments.

Which weren't about drugs. At all. And if you actually don't understand that, and aren't just trolling me, I'm really sorry for you.

I have been completely serious about every single thing I have said to you.  You want bitcoins strictly for their purchasing power in black market goods.  There is a whole world of virtue besides this, and you aren't a part of it.  

Do you also think that free speech should be limited because the KKK might say something bad?

Speaking of strawman arguments.

I can't think of any better ways to state the things I have said to you.  Our interest in bitcoins stem from terminally disparate sources.  We will never reach agreement or meaningful conclusion like this.  Pretend I am bowing out of the argument because I have been defeated.  It matters not at all.  What will come, will come, and your anarchistic fantasies won't stop it.  It is too soon for your ideals in my country.

[mewantsbitcoins]

...and this was such a nice thread before this nonsense...

Now, people looking for info, will have to go through all this dick waving.

[Goldenmaw]

opps sorry anisoptera. totally read your response as coming from goldenmaw which was REALLY confusing me

I am still interested both in how you think this regulation occurs goldenmaw and how in our surveillance/police state that is, as you mentioned, stuffed to the gills with people incarcerated for growing or smoking a plant, you are going to convince the powers that be that they should embrace and regulate this new emerging technology and that it is not a threat to their power.

Now, this is interesting!  Firstly, any hypotheticals I put forward here are hinged on an indefensible and indeed unlikely premise, and another one that defies one of the most obvious design goals of bitcoin - that the federal government could be tempted to abandon the banking establishments with the lure of how easy it would be for a governing body to track and control the movement of bitcoins for the purposes of maintaining a healthy and stable government, were they to be centralized.  

The next thing I lay down is that, the currency of a country's populace must be taxable for that country to survive.  Period.  We, the people, must be taxed, or we can have no government.  "Hooray!",  say the Anarchists, until their murder and pillage by some stronger and better armed Anarchists.  We need our government to be capable of protecting us from harm and to safeguard our well being.

That established, all that would be required for the taxation and regulation of bitcoin usage is to do the unthinkable and centralize it, requiring communication with federal servers to track and verify bitcoin exchanges.  What if the miners connected to these servers in one massive, publicly driven pool?  This would afford Bitcoins all of the benefits of Bitcoin usage except for the purchasing of illegal goods and services.  Banking establishments - the real enemy, here - would simply be written out of the picture, as safeguarding one's life savings is as easy as stashing an encrypted CD containing one's bitcoin wallet, freeing my country from the shackles of bondage that is rapidly annihilating our middle-class.  Inflation, thanks to the powerfully designed preventative measures inherent in Bitcoin's structure, might well still become a thing of the past under such a scenario, although some unconscious part of me suspects that the deflationary measures are in a twisted way hinged on their exchangeability with the inflating USD.  I can't put that worry to words just yet, so don't ask.

Finally, the decentralization of how bitcoins are "printed", coupled with the grotesque difficulty involved in counterfeiting, would revolutionize the stability of what I'll now call the "US-B".  Really, this situation contains all the benefits of the Bitcoin except the inherently anarchistic ones - most notably the traits that the folks I've argued with all afternoon in this thread value the most.


And that ends that fantasy.  The more I think about this, the more damned Bitcoin seems in my country.  That scenario can't happen - power structures loathe change as buildings loathe earthquakes.  The banks have my country by the balls, and Bitcoin's pseudo-anonymity can't stop it.  

[FreeMoney]

...and this was such a nice thread before this nonsense...

Now, people looking for info, will have to go through all this dick waving.

I don't think ani has a dick.

[anisoptera]

You want bitcoins strictly for their purchasing power in black market goods.  There is a whole world of virtue besides this, and you aren't a part of it.

No. I don't. One of the primary attributes of bitcoins I do value just happens to be the same one that provides them with black market purchasing power.

the decentralization of how bitcoins are "printed", coupled with the grotesque difficulty involved in counterfeiting, would revolutionize the stability of what I'll now call the "US-B".

So you think that a government would regulate and legitimize a currency that they do not have the power to issue?



And I'm the dreamer here?

I don't think ani has a dick.

[marcus_of_augustus]

opps sorry anisoptera. totally read your response as coming from goldenmaw which was REALLY confusing me

I am still interested both in how you think this regulation occurs goldenmaw and how in our surveillance/police state that is, as you mentioned, stuffed to the gills with people incarcerated for growing or smoking a plant, you are going to convince the powers that be that they should embrace and regulate this new emerging technology and that it is not a threat to their power.

Now, this is interesting!  Firstly, any hypotheticals I put forward here are hinged on an indefensible and indeed unlikely premise, and another one that defies one of the most obvious design goals of bitcoin - that the federal government could be tempted to abandon the banking establishments with the lure of how easy it would be for a governing body to track and control the movement of bitcoins for the purposes of maintaining a healthy and stable government, were they to be centralized.  

The next thing I lay down is that, the currency of a country's populace must be taxable for that country to survive.  Period.  We, the people, must be taxed, or we can have no government.  "Hooray!",  say the Anarchists, until their murder and pillage by some stronger and better armed Anarchists.  We need our government to be capable of protecting us from harm and to safeguard our well being.

That established, all that would be required for the taxation and regulation of bitcoin usage is to do the unthinkable and centralize it, requiring communication with federal servers to track and verify bitcoin exchanges.  What if the miners connected to these servers in one massive, publicly driven pool?  This would afford Bitcoins all of the benefits of Bitcoin usage except for the purchasing of illegal goods and services.  Banking establishments - the real enemy, here - would simply be written out of the picture, as safeguarding one's life savings is as easy as stashing an encrypted CD containing one's bitcoin wallet, freeing my country from the shackles of bondage that is rapidly annihilating our middle-class.  Inflation, thanks to the powerfully designed preventative measures inherent in Bitcoin's structure, might well still become a thing of the past under such a scenario, although some unconscious part of me suspects that the deflationary measures are in a twisted way hinged on their exchangeability with the inflating USD.  I can't put that worry to words just yet, so don't ask.

Finally, the decentralization of how bitcoins are "printed", coupled with the grotesque difficulty involved in counterfeiting, would revolutionize the stability of what I'll now call the "US-B".  Really, this situation contains all the benefits of the Bitcoin except the inherently anarchistic ones - most notably the traits that the folks I've argued with all afternoon in this thread value the most.


And that ends that fantasy.  The more I think about this, the more damned Bitcoin seems in my country.  That scenario can't happen - power structures loathe change as buildings loathe earthquakes.  The banks have my country by the balls, and Bitcoin's pseudo-anonymity can't stop it.  

You are in a dream world. This is why your country, any many others like it, are damned. Welcome to an earthquake technology.

[Goldenmaw]

You are in a dream world. This is why your country, any many others like it, are damned. Welcome to an earthquake technology.

I said it was a fantasy.  Damned is such a great word for it.  The way my country is organized has it so barricaded against the emergence of Bitcoins that I'm starting to think that it would take nothing short of an armed nerd revolution to see it through.

Worse still is the sheer number of users in the relatively tech-savvy USA who stand to lose a great deal when the hammer finally falls.

[FatherMcGruder]

...black transactions ... black market...

Why's it gotta be "black"?

Because I'm not sure what's really going on here I don't think I'm in any position to judge what is or isn't "feasible."

I think that will a little bit of due diligence, you know, reading up on Bitcoin some more, reading the thread, perusing Silk Road, you'll find yourself in a better position to contribute to the thread with useful suggestions and debate. I write this entirely without snark in the hopes of driving the point that the people running Silk Road have no power to exclude anyone. Its operators can try to ban certain products, but they will just show up under different names. As we know (and for those who hadn't, you're welcome), in the absence of an adult services section, you need to proof-read for accidental innuendos in your Craigslist post, lest you encounter a large woman with a strap-on instead of the pegboard you expected. Furthermore, the folks at Silk Road can't stop those running a Silk Road clone from catering to people wishing to trade in whatever products the original had banned.

If it's a hoax, it's beautiful.  On the other hand if it is not a hoax...

Let's just assume that it's not a hoax.

...then I believe it becomes part of the problem. Certainly nothing like cartels and gangs, yet still operating as if it, Silk Road, were above the law.  My aim has always been to change the law and make things better for everybody, except of course those who get fat off the way the law is today.

Everyone, raise your hand if you broke the law today. Working within the bounds of the law will only get us so far, so fast. Is the thought of breaking the system, or letting it break itself, so bad? Se cayó.

[Goldenmaw]

I didn't come up with that naming convention, and I refuse to carry that particular torch!  I'm way, way uphill in this thread as it is.