|
em3rgentOrdr (OP)
|
 |
May 02, 2011, 03:42:05 AM |
|
http://costofwar.com/Wouldn't it have been cheaper with a decentralized assasination market?
|
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to
trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions
effortless." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
May 02, 2011, 03:44:45 AM |
|
Almost certainly. Probably only a few hundred thousand to few million before someone close to him finds it economically suitable to turn on him, or for some individual or group to track him down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaime Frontero
|
|
May 02, 2011, 03:51:34 AM |
|
i don't believe so. as i recall, the last bounty on osama's head was either 20 or 40 (i think it was doubled in there somewhere) million dollars. didn't work, did it? in any case, good riddance. |
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
May 02, 2011, 03:54:23 AM |
|
Terrorists are so incompetent at killing people that it's practically a waste of money to go after them.
Better focus on car accidents. That kill more people every year. A 9/11 style would have to occurs pretty often to catch up to them.
(So, 3000 people have their justice...but how many lives were brought to kill Osama bin Laden?)
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 02, 2011, 03:59:43 AM |
|
Terrorists are so incompetent at killing people that it's practically a waste of money to go after them.
Better focus on car accidents. That kill more people every year. A 9/11 style would have to occurs pretty often to catch up to them.
It's the fear of having people like Osama out there that is the real issue though. We can't live in fear. |
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:03:10 AM |
|
It's the fear of having people like Osama out there that is the real issue though. We can't live in fear.
It's an irrational fear. It's also when terrorists won. Lives taken are collateral. What get taken is our mind. That already happened. The retarded security measure taken by TSA actually results in lives taken because people rather drive cars than go through the BS that the TSA. |
|
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:06:50 AM |
|
I detect sarcasm in his statement. I could be wrong!
I am quite serious. |
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:19:13 AM |
|
It's the fear of having people like Osama out there that is the real issue though. We can't live in fear.
It's an irrational fear. It's also when terrorists won. Lives taken are collateral. What get taken is our mind. That already happened. The retarded security measure taken by TSA actually results in lives taken because people rather drive cars than go through the BS that the TSA. I never said the fear was rational. But it is real, and no matter how much you tell people it is irrational, it still won't take the fear away. Things like killing Osama will. |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:24:48 AM |
|
Great job everybody. Now since there's no reason to be in harm's way anymore, we'll just bring the troops home. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say that. I forgot that getting the troops out of IED blast range isn't supporting them. I can hear it now--contingency operations, rebuilding after terrorist rule, they still hate us, they still have a bunch of lithium in the ground. All good reasons to stay right where the troops secure our economic interests.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:35:50 AM |
|
It's the fear of having people like Osama out there that is the real issue though. We can't live in fear.
It's an irrational fear. It's also when terrorists won. Lives taken are collateral. What get taken is our mind. That already happened. The retarded security measure taken by TSA actually results in lives taken because people rather drive cars than go through the BS that the TSA. I never said the fear was rational. But it is real, and no matter how much you tell people it is irrational, it still won't take the fear away. Things like killing Osama will. It also gets votes. Now the Republicans running in '12 will have to decide whether they're pro-war (with the risk of being considered pro-Obama) or pro-peace (with the risk of being considered Ron Paul). |
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
May 02, 2011, 04:58:06 AM |
|
I never said the fear was rational. But it is real, and no matter how much you tell people it is irrational, it still won't take the fear away.
Things like killing Osama will.
Doesn't mean we should be stupid in killing Osama and doing things like....making long lines ripe for juicy terrorist attacks. |
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 02, 2011, 05:12:30 AM |
|
I never said the fear was rational. But it is real, and no matter how much you tell people it is irrational, it still won't take the fear away.
Things like killing Osama will.
Doesn't mean we should be stupid in killing Osama and doing things like....making long lines ripe for juicy terrorist attacks. What do you mean by long juicy lines? |
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
May 02, 2011, 05:34:48 AM |
|
What do you mean by long juicy lines?
The things that TSA like to makes. Long waiting lines. |
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr (OP)
|
|
May 02, 2011, 05:52:34 AM |
|
Terrorists are so incompetent at killing people that it's practically a waste of money to go after them.
Better focus on car accidents. That kill more people every year. A 9/11 style would have to occurs pretty often to catch up to them.
(So, 3000 people have their justice...but how many lives were brought to kill Osama bin Laden?)
Kiba is right, as usual. Just because a lot of innocent people died on 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of resources should be spent to kill Osama. Resources that could have been spend on improving transportation safety. Opportunity cost. And no one sees the increases in car accidents resulting from people avoiding plane transportation due to additional security fees and tyrannical TSA agents. i don't believe so. as i recall, the last bounty on osama's head was either 20 or 40 (i think it was doubled in there somewhere) million dollars. didn't work, did it? in any case, good riddance. I suppose it is impossible to answer. But first off, note that the US government's bounty was not a decentralized assassination market. It was taxpayer (read: theft) money collected and arranged by the US government and paid for in Federal Reserve Notes. There are many complications with this: - Morally speaking, many people refuse to accept government money because it is stolen from peaceful people. There are separate threads about whether taxes are theft, so no need to get into that discussion here.
- Pragmatically speaking, many would-be assassins would be put off by the fact that there would be no guarantee that they would receive the money (the US government rarely honor contracts and is untrustworthy), unlike with a smart-contract assassination market run by a trustworthy computer which could be setup to automatically pay the winner without human involvement (except for maybe a vote to verify that indeed the target was killed on that particular date). Look, we don't even know for sure that Gavin will not be arrested when he visits the CIA
 - There is no anonymity for the assassin with the US-sponsored bounty, unlike with a bitcoin assassination market whereby the winner would simply use a new address. News channels are even speculating about possible revenge terrorist attacks since the attack was a US-sponsored operation. Would-be assassins may be deterred by the fact that there would be jihadist al-qaeda loyalists out there who would want to kill the assassin. Plus, the fact that the money would be in USD would make it very suspicious if you are some random arab with $20-million USD all of the sudden.
- The $20-million USD pricetag was not set by the invisible hand of the market, but rather by some government bureaucrats. It could be that given the difficulties of navigating the rough terrain and getting close enough to Osama to shoot him, the actual cost of such an operation might require a multi-person assassin team composed of professionals with various specialties, but most likely would not have been $400 billion. The price mechanism can determine the cheapest/optimal cost.
Anyway, I'm not necessarily an advocate of assassination markets, as I'm concerned about negative risks. But they are inevitable given the existence of bitcoin. Which is why we should be talking about assassination markets. And now is a great opportunity. |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
m4rkiz
|
|
May 03, 2011, 03:44:06 PM |
|
Which is why we should be talking about assassination markets. And now is a great opportunity.
sounds scary   |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
May 03, 2011, 04:05:11 PM |
|
It's not really as scary as it sounds.
It was originally thought of as a way to protect citizens against corrupt government officials. The idea is that the more corrupt an official, the more people that will want him dead. An assassination market is simply a site that allows individuals to guess the date on which an individual will die. Each guess costs some amount of anonymous money (Bitcoin, in our case), and people can contribute to the growing pot without actually guessing too. As the pool grows, there is more and more incentive for a lone individual or group to expedite the death of the individual. Since it happens at a time and place of their choosing, they can be almost certain that they will win the pool.
The originator of the idea foresaw it not only being used domestically against dirty state officials, but leaders of aggressive foreign nations. For instance, if the Northeast United States seceded and became an anarchist society, they could rely on individuals to form a militia, or private defense agencies for protection from aggressive nations. However, they could also use the assassination market to protect themselves. What are the chances that a leader of a country will authorize an attack on the anarchist society if he knows it will bring a substantial bounty on his head?
|
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 03, 2011, 04:31:12 PM |
|
It's not really as scary as it sounds.
It was originally thought of as a way to protect citizens against corrupt government officials. The idea is that the more corrupt an official, the more people that will want him dead. An assassination market is simply a site that allows individuals to guess the date on which an individual will die. Each guess costs some amount of anonymous money (Bitcoin, in our case), and people can contribute to the growing pot without actually guessing too. As the pool grows, there is more and more incentive for a lone individual or group to expedite the death of the individual. Since it happens at a time and place of their choosing, they can be almost certain that they will win the pool.
The originator of the idea foresaw it not only being used domestically against dirty state officials, but leaders of aggressive foreign nations. For instance, if the Northeast United States seceded and became an anarchist society, they could rely on individuals to form a militia, or private defense agencies for protection from aggressive nations. However, they could also use the assassination market to protect themselves. What are the chances that a leader of a country will authorize an attack on the anarchist society if he knows it will bring a substantial bounty on his head?
It also sounds like a great way for an ex-wife to get revenge. Or anyone who doesn't like you, for that matter. People will kill for very little if they are good at it and there are no consequences. I would hate to live in such a society - I would always be living in fear. Your example of government officials sounds all dandy, but it could just as easily be used against you. Someone gives a bloke on the street $50 to cap you in the head, and you'd probably never even see it coming. |
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
May 03, 2011, 04:44:08 PM |
|
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
OBL's sudden death by bullet holes shouldn't surprise anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
May 03, 2011, 04:52:46 PM |
|
It also sounds like a great way for an ex-wife to get revenge. Or anyone who doesn't like you, for that matter.
People will kill for very little if they are good at it and there are no consequences. I would hate to live in such a society - I would always be living in fear.
Your example of government officials sounds all dandy, but it could just as easily be used against you. Someone gives a bloke on the street $50 to cap you in the head, and you'd probably never even see it coming.
All of what you say are concerns regardless of an assassination market. It could just as easily happen that your ex-wife or guy that doesn't like you gives a crack head $50 to kill you... An assassination market is really only useful as tool for a bunch of people to contribute a little bit toward the untimely demise of a widely dislike figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
