selling drugs and money laundering: the potential downfall of bitcoin

[Shortline]

Food for thought:
How do we know this is not the exact intent of Bitcoin.  The questions are: Who is the target and who is the creator?

Satoshi was the creator. The world was the target.

I think food for thought is better served by the question, "when will the government co-opt bitcoin and start running the majority of the servers to keep better track of it?"

Markets like Silk Road cannot exist without law abiding Bitcoin users. Without them, there's no cover and exchangers would be accessories. Just an observation.

Not necessarily. If it's good enough for the world at large to use, it's definitely good enough for the underground black economy to use. The black market is outrageously complex, extremely concerned with security and trust issues, ever-changing, highly competitive and regulated by simple supply and demand market conditions bankers can only fervently dream of. Silk road is just the tiniest exposed sliver of the worldwide drug market and there are still plenty of btc/btc opportunities to be found.

I think it's quite likely if for some reason it doesn't take off with the majority of the public it will still be used by the black market.

Money exchangers will be happy to play along - right hand on the table doodling in the ledger book, left hand under the table making trades. As it once was so shall it always be.

[1714795904]

1714795904

[1714795904]

1714795904

[1714795904]

1714795904

[Nefario]

Food for thought:
How do we know this is not the exact intent of Bitcoin.  The questions are: Who is the target and who is the creator?

Satoshi was the creator. The world was the target.

I think food for thought is better served by the question, "when will the government co-opt bitcoin and start running the majority of the servers to keep better track of it?"

Markets like Silk Road cannot exist without law abiding Bitcoin users. Without them, there's no cover and exchangers would be accessories. Just an observation.

Not necessarily. If it's good enough for the world at large to use, it's definitely good enough for the underground black economy to use. The black market is outrageously complex, extremely concerned with security and trust issues, ever-changing, highly competitive and regulated by simple supply and demand market conditions bankers can only fervently dream of. Silk road is just the tiniest exposed sliver of the worldwide drug market and there are still plenty of btc/btc opportunities to be found.

I think it's quite likely if for some reason it doesn't take off with the majority of the public it will still be used by the black market.

Money exchangers will be happy to play along - right hand on the table doodling in the ledger book, left hand under the table making trades. As it once was so shall it always be.

I second this sentiment. Bitcoin is perfect for the black market.

[Anonymous]

Im sure no one wants to meet some random psycho in a dark alley to exchange bitcoins. I can just see the headline "Person killed after meeting a randomn stranger to exchange internet money"

I have an idea for something that would let people meet more safely to exchange bitcoins in person.

Would that be a popular thing ? I need to write up a proposal for it soon .


If the main way to get bitcoins is in person or cash transactions the actual physical meeting becomes a weak point that can be exploited.

[FatherMcGruder]

Im sure no one wants to meet some random psycho in a dark alley to exchange bitcoins. I can just see the headline "Person killed after meeting a randomn stranger to exchange internet money"

I have an idea for something that would let people meet more safely to exchange bitcoins in person.

Would that be a popular thing ? I need to write up a proposal for it soon .


If the main way to get bitcoins is in person or cash transactions the actual physical meeting becomes a weak point that can be exploited.

So, drug dealers are usually homicidal maniacs? Where do get your drugs?

[Anonymous]

Im sure no one wants to meet some random psycho in a dark alley to exchange bitcoins. I can just see the headline "Person killed after meeting a randomn stranger to exchange internet money"

I have an idea for something that would let people meet more safely to exchange bitcoins in person.

Would that be a popular thing ? I need to write up a proposal for it soon .


If the main way to get bitcoins is in person or cash transactions the actual physical meeting becomes a weak point that can be exploited.

So, drug dealers are usually homicidal maniacs? Where do get your drugs?

Drug dealers aren't the issue it's craigslist serial killers I'm scared  of -

And agents sniffing out two individuals completing a transaction they have interest in.
 

[wb3]

Dumb Drug dealers are homicidal maniacs, would be a better statement.

Loan Sharks learned a long time ago, you don't get any money from dead people.

[Anonymous]

Dumb Drug dealers are homicidal maniacs, would be a better statement.

Loan Sharks learned a long time ago, you don't get any money from dead people.

This is true. They usually don't like attracting attention by crapping in their own backyard

[anonymousgod]

I'm not debating if drugs should be illegal or not. I think people should be able to ingest anything they want. Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be illegal, it is illegal. The government you want to over throw could buy all 5 million bitcoins in existence without batting an eye, instantly destroying the network. Don't tempt them. If you want this to succeed you have to make it something the powerful people want a piece of, not something they want to crush.

I would agree with that as long as I don't pay for their stupidity.  If someone wants to drink acid, go for it. Just don't let public money or systems pay for their health care.

I'm not debating if drugs should be illegal or not. I think people should be able to ingest anything they want. Regardless of whether it should or shouldn't be illegal, it is illegal. The government you want to over throw could buy all 5 million bitcoins in existence without batting an eye, instantly destroying the network. Don't tempt them. If you want this to succeed you have to make it something the powerful people want a piece of, not something they want to crush.

I would agree with that as long as I don't pay for their stupidity.  If someone wants to drink acid, go for it. Just don't let public money or systems pay for their health care.

Brainwashed by government propaganda much? The overwhelming majority of drugs are tools to explore your mind. The second largest group are drugs to have fun that cause little to no negative effects and can also be used to get over problems like PTSD. Then there are also drugs to help you study and drugs to kill pain. Only a small number of illegal drugs cause significant negative effects and these drugs tend to only do so if used in large amounts over a significant period of time. I smoked crack once in my life. Didn't care for it, but it caused me no harm at all. I havn't tried heroin and don't plan to, but I am sure I could try it once. I tried meth a few times even, and then decided to stop. Although I do use some amphetamine very rarely to study. I am not a fan of hard drugs though and these days I only use tons of LSD. I have used LSD several hundred times and have never had a flashback or a bad trip, although I have had several amazing positive life changing experiences! Amazing that I have used oodles of softdrugs and even tried hard drugs a few times and I am perfectly healthy and I don't cost you any money or cause any problems! But I still have the fucking fascist police thugs to worry about throwing me in prison so they can use your stolen tax dollars to pay the private prison industry and benefit all the other corporations that benefit from this war.

Automatically assuming that using drugs = stupidity only shows that you are stupid. You automatically refuse to use any of these tools to expand your mind simply because you have been indoctrinated by government-coporate propaganda into thinking badly about them.

People who don't try drugs are really missing out, particularly psychedelics. It is like you are blind and so afraid of opening your eyes because you are told that it is so bad to see. But once you open your eyes there is no turning back =). Anymore than you would pluck your eyes out from your head. And the risks are so low. LSD is one of the safest drugs on earth!

[Vandroiy]

Can I have your attention please?

This forum is called "Marketplace". There exist multiple discussion forums more suitable for the topic at hand, especially: Bitcoin Discussion; Economics; Trading Discussion.

Edit: thanks for moving.

[wb3]

Brainwashed by government propaganda much? The overwhelming majority of drugs are tools to explore your mind. The second largest group are drugs to have fun that cause little to no negative effects and can also be used to get over problems like PTSD. Then there are also drugs to help you study and drugs to kill pain. Only a small number of illegal drugs cause significant negative effects and these drugs tend to only do so if used in large amounts over a significant period of time. I smoked crack once in my life. Didn't care for it, but it caused me no harm at all. I havn't tried heroin and don't plan to, but I am sure I could try it once. I tried meth a few times even, and then decided to stop. Although I do use some amphetamine very rarely to study. I am not a fan of hard drugs though and these days I only use tons of LSD. I have used LSD several hundred times and have never had a flashback or a bad trip, although I have had several amazing positive life changing experiences! Amazing that I have used oodles of softdrugs and even tried hard drugs a few times and I am perfectly healthy and I don't cost you any money or cause any problems! But I still have the fucking fascist police thugs to worry about throwing me in prison so they can use your stolen tax dollars to pay the private prison industry and benefit all the other corporations that benefit from this war.

Automatically assuming that using drugs = stupidity only shows that you are stupid. You automatically refuse to use any of these tools to expand your mind simply because you have been indoctrinated by government-coporate propaganda into thinking badly about them.

People who don't try drugs are really missing out, particularly psychedelics. It is like you are blind and so afraid of opening your eyes because you are told that it is so bad to see. But once you open your eyes there is no turning back =). Anymore than you would pluck your eyes out from your head. And the risks are so low. LSD is one of the safest drugs on earth!

The overwhelming majority of drugs are tools to explore your mind.

You need "help" to be introspective and philosophical, rather than just being able to do it yourself.

But assume you get some "bad" drugs and need hospital attention. Who should pay for your bill?  I think you should be wholly responsible. You apparently hate tax dollars, so you wouldn't take any of that money would you?

Automatically assuming that using drugs = stupidity only shows that you are stupid. You automatically refuse to use any of these tools to expand your mind simply because you have been indoctrinated by government-coporate propaganda into thinking badly about them.

People who don't try drugs are really missing out, particularly psychedelics. It is like you are blind and so afraid of opening your eyes because you are told that it is so bad to see. But once you open your eyes there is no turning back =). Anymore than you would pluck your eyes out from your head. And the risks are so low. LSD is one of the safest drugs on earth!

Yea, better get another dose, we are coming, we are coming. We are going to get you. We are watching.

Color me stupid then, and like another stamp. For all I care, you can take all the LSD you want.
 
Irregardless of the "drug", nature seems to deal with excessive use or chemical addictive behavior in simple ways. It will destroy you.

Now I am not saying taking a hit of MJ every-once in awhile will kill you, it is when a drug consumes you. When it changes your natural instincts for survival, you are on a road of destruction.

And for someone that hates the Government and its Machine so much; Why LSD, a "Government created drug", to "control" you.
Wouldn't you be better off taking "shrooms" from cow shit.

And BTW can you read:  Do you think "tax" money should pay for people that take "drugs" so much and to a degree that they need to use "public" money?

You seem to be in a kind of Catch-22 here;

If you say yes, you defeat your own argument.

If you say no, you agree with me, and you counter statement makes no sense.

Maybe, you should take another hit, and figure it out.

[FatherMcGruder]

And for someone that hates the Government and its Machine so much; Why LSD, a "Government created drug", to "control" you.

From the Wikipedia: "LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives." The CIA didn't get involved until the fifties. Sandoz Industries was a private company which we now call Novartis.

Wouldn't you be better off taking "shrooms" from cow shit.

One doesn't need manure to grow p. cubensis mushrooms.

Just trying to clear up some FUD.

[hozer]

Food for thought:
How do we know this is not the exact intent of Bitcoin.  The questions are: Who is the target and who is the creator?

Satoshi was the creator. The world was the target.

I think food for thought is better served by the question, "when will the government co-opt bitcoin and start running the majority of the servers to keep better track of it?"

I will argue that if (or when?) governments co-opt bitcoin and run the majority of servers, that this is a clear unambiguous sign of complete success of the project. You want to see how the government is managing your money? Check blockexplorer.us. Don't believe them? Check blockexplorer.cn.

[wb3]

And for someone that hates the Government and its Machine so much; Why LSD, a "Government created drug", to "control" you.

From the Wikipedia: "LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland as part of a large research program searching for medically useful ergot alkaloid derivatives." The CIA didn't get involved until the fifties. Sandoz Industries was a private company which we now call Novartis.

Wouldn't you be better off taking "shrooms" from cow shit.

One doesn't need manure to grow p. cubensis mushrooms.

Just trying to clear up some FUD.

Dude,

Your a downer.

And 2 apples plus 2 apples doesn't equal four apples it equals approximately four apples.

[FatherMcGruder]

You're a downer.

And 2 apples plus 2 apples doesn't equal four apples it equals approximately four apples.

Not sure I understand where you're going here.

[wb3]

Just that I didn't over analyze my comments and relied on intent rather than specifics. But someone pointing out specific can be a downer.

Like the 2+2=4 example. The intent is obvious but to be specific, there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in the real world only in the abstract world.

i.e. 2 apples plus 2 apples approximately = 4 apples because no 2 apples are the same.

[BitterTea]

Just that I didn't over analyze my comments and relied on intent rather than specifics. But someone pointing out specific can be a downer.

Like the 2+2=4 example. The intent is obvious but to be specific, there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in the real world only in the abstract world.

i.e. 2 apples plus 2 apples approximately = 4 apples because no 2 apples are the same.

No, 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. One the left side "an apple" is a discrete unit of measurement, so on the right side it must be too. Otherwise, you can't say "2 apples", you must say "approximately 2 apples", by your logic.

From what I can tell, your "point" is that tax money should not be used to pay for medical treatment necessary due to drug use. What about any other risky, non-essential activity, say driving a car or skydiving?

[FatherMcGruder]

Just that I didn't over analyze my comments and relied on intent rather than specifics. But someone pointing out specific can be a downer.

Like the 2+2=4 example. The intent is obvious but to be specific, there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in the real world only in the abstract world.

i.e. 2 apples plus 2 apples approximately = 4 apples because no 2 apples are the same.

I see. I think it's important though not to purport untruths about drugs. People can get hurt that way.

[wb3]

Just that I didn't over analyze my comments and relied on intent rather than specifics. But someone pointing out specific can be a downer.

Like the 2+2=4 example. The intent is obvious but to be specific, there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in the real world only in the abstract world.

i.e. 2 apples plus 2 apples approximately = 4 apples because no 2 apples are the same.

No, 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. One the left side "an apple" is a discrete unit of measurement, so on the right side it must be too. Otherwise, you can't say "2 apples", you must say "approximately 2 apples", by your logic.

From what I can tell, your "point" is that tax money should not be used to pay for medical treatment necessary due to drug use. What about any other risky, non-essential activity, say driving a car or skydiving?

No two apples are the same [.]

But you got my general twist. But I look at things not in a legal or non-legal way but a societal benefit type of way.  I understand it is not possible to draw a straight line that this activity is OK, and this activity isn't.

I am not a fan of public health care period.

Driving a car is an essential activity for the majority, and it provides a societal benefit.

Skydiving is not, if you hit the ground and fracture all your bones; pay for it.   If you survive.

Illicit Drugs are more complicated. I would agree on whole that MJ is less of a problem than Alcohol. I am not in favor of paying for their behaviors that lead to health problems with public money. Private Insurance, sure.

But crack can be shown as having a negative impact on society. And the same for many other drugs.

However, when it comes to impairment and work. The Employer rules. I wouldn't allow people to work in certain positions even with legal drugs and prescriptions.

My positions can be concluded upon based on simple Natural Laws. I am in favor of laws that most closely follow Natural Laws and conclusions from those Natural Laws. Ironically, this makes me both a Conservative and a Liberal on varying issues but its basis is in and from Natural Laws.

In my world the Government wouldn't provide any health care, but would fund research for health care. Groups and individuals would provide the financing for their health care.

You can't prevent people from doing harmful things to themselves, so the government shouldn't either. But the Government shouldn't subsidize that behavior either.

People seem to like the drugs that do 1 of 2 things the most. The drugs that "makes them feel good" and the drugs that "alter reality". Even provide "life changing" events.

Nature isn't so nice to those that go down that road. There are two worlds, the construct and reality. Many today can't tell the difference. That is bad for society.

Sure I would like the Star Trek world with peace on earth, no one hungers, no crime, no death penalties, etc...  It is a noble goal, but it is not reality, it is a dream. But if people want to get there, you must work with in reality.

In my world Governments are there to counter act the necessity of capitalism. Governments can put money where no company or individual would.  Cheap energy that no company would invest in because there is no profit.  Cheap communications, cheap alternative to medicine, etc...   Governments and Corporations should be "enemies".  But Governments can force Corporations to adapt or die.

I do know one thing, we don't get to this future by everyone taking LSD, MJ, Alcohol, etc....  But I understand that people will want to try.

[kiba]

I do know one thing, we don't get to this future by everyone taking LSD, MJ, Alcohol, etc....  But I understand that people will want to try.

LSD is not addictive and the altered mind caused by LSD is not necessarily bad. If you going to take the drug, it's probably best to be monitored by doctors and other professional that know how to deal with it if you have a bad episode.

[BitterTea]

I am not a fan of public health care period.

Neither am I.

Driving a car is an essential activity for the majority, and it provides a societal benefit.

It's essential only because the State provides subsidized roads. Lacking "free" roadways, alternatives would be more heavily utilized. The dependence on automobiles is almost entirely a creation of the State.

Illicit Drugs are more complicated. I would agree on whole that MJ is less of a problem than Alcohol. I am not in favor of paying for their behaviors that lead to health problems with public money. Private Insurance, sure.

First, there is no such thing as "public money", just "government money". The fact that the State takes my money from me using the threat of violence does not justify the persecution of individuals for ingesting certain chemicals.

Second, I would challenge you to name one aspect in which Cannabis is more harmful than Alcohol (other than its illegality, which is a problem created by the State, not the drug).

But crack can be shown as having a negative impact on society. And the same for many other drugs.

What is "society". How can a chemical ingested by an individual have a negative impact on "society"? You also draw no distinction between use and abuse. By definition, drug use is the cause of problems, not use alone. Certain drugs are more difficult (biologically) to use and not abuse, but that is very dependent on the individuals body and mind.

However, when it comes to impairment and work. The Employer rules. I wouldn't allow people to work in certain positions even with legal drugs and prescriptions.

Sure. I support the right of property owners to do what they wish on their property. If they want to force you to piss in a cup every time you arrive for work, that's their prerogative, but I will not associate with such an individual.

My positions can be concluded upon based on simple Natural Laws.

Most drugs used today are natural, or synthesized from natural ones. If nature provides a chemical that alters my brain in a specific way, why should you have any say in the matter? That doesn't seem to follow from Natural Law. Perhaps if you explain your conception of a "natural law", this would make more sense.

People seem to like the drugs that do 1 of 2 things the most. The drugs that "makes them feel good" and the drugs that "alter reality". Even provide "life changing" events.

Nature isn't so nice to those that go down that road. There are two worlds, the construct and reality. Many today can't tell the difference. That is bad for society.

I'll agree that those are the two primary reasons for using drugs. Entheogens (hallucinogens and other drugs used for mind-expanding purposes) can produce incredibly powerful sensations and changes in perception. In my opinion, nothing other than meditation can even come.

In my world Governments are there to counter act the necessity of capitalism. Governments can put money where no company or individual would.  Cheap energy that no company would invest in because there is no profit.  Cheap communications, cheap alternative to medicine, etc...   Governments and Corporations should be "enemies".  But Governments can force Corporations to adapt or die.

You misunderstand the nature of the State. It is not at odds with corporations, but their mother. It does not promote equality, but inequality. They do not promote the public good at the cost of the few, but the good of the few at the cost of the many.

I do know one thing, we don't get to this future by everyone taking LSD, MJ, Alcohol, etc....  But I understand that people will want to try.

I bet we'd get there a lot faster if people traded their Statism trip for an LSD one.