Why didn't the government leave Silk Road open...

[redsn0w]

A decentralized Silk Road would be perfect and definitely worthy of implementation.

Agreed. It would make good business sense for one to begin working on such a site, keeping recent events in mind. And even if the U.S. legalizes all drugs, a decentralized exchange could still serve people from other countries. Also, even U.S. people could simply continue selling drugs on decentralized exchanges, rather than having to open storefronts or some unknown websites. The U.S. won't legalize all drugs anytime soon though, and the closest thing to it would probably be not outlawing nanotech-induced neurotransmitter manipulation.

Which money did the U.S. government steal exactly? Was it BTC that was placed in an escrow-like fashion for drugs that were awaiting delivery? Or was it simply BTC that potential customers were storing on the site for whatever reason? That is a huge distinction. In one case they are simply stealing from people who choose to do as they wish with their own bodies. But in the other case, it's literally guilty until proven innocent.

It is not simple to create a decentralized marketplace, I'm saying a really 100% decentralized and autonomos place for selling whatever stuff you want. We should wait something ethereum ( or maybe better) to start thinking to create a fully and functional decentral. online marketplace.At the end if who will create that marketplace if he will shut down their server, he will disappear with all the bitcoin (or altcoins).

[Brooker]

Decentralized exchanges will slowly become the norm. People are losing faith in these sorts of markets and this is exactly why. Nobody should trust unknown criminals on the shady darknet and for good reason.

Why do you think that the government would help people? That is nonsense that many believe. The government doesn't work for the people, they just act like they do.
Why would they take less money for themselves than they could? Actually, why would anyone take $5 out of the stash instead of taking the whole stash of $50?

Exactly. A government in reality should serve the people but in actuality they don't. They're just there to give the illusion that they do whilst they siphon off public funds ie your taxes into private pockets. Most governments operate like this sadly.

[niktitan132]

Why would FBI do that? lol
The BTC deposited there was used for illegal activities...

[futureofbitcoin]

It's amazing how people are shameless enough to support criminals, even if they're hiding behind the computer.

*It's not like I support everything the government does; but regardless of whether the government is good or not, I won't support these criminals.

[Sutters Mill]

It's amazing how people are shameless enough to support criminals, even if they're hiding behind the computer.

*It's not like I support everything the government does; but regardless of whether the government is good or not, I won't support these criminals.

What is shameless is the government forcing people to resort to the underground blackmarket for behavior which should be none of their business and certainly not a criminal matter. The government should have no authority over what adults may or may not choose to put into their bodies. The governments actually create these markets by default by dissalowing them in the first place. Clearly people want drugs and they should be able to get them.

[calme]

It's amazing how people are shameless enough to support criminals, even if they're hiding behind the computer.

*It's not like I support everything the government does; but regardless of whether the government is good or not, I won't support these criminals.

It's amazing how so many people confuse legislation with morality.

Ghandi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" quote comes to mind here. I'm too cheap to even buy recreational drugs, but I wouldn't be too cheap to make a donation to a nonprofit organization established to create and maintain a decentralized drug marketplace. Just on principle. For profit is fine, but I'm of course not donating to that.

[ajareselde]

I think this may apply under "civil forfeiture", basically any asset you use or intend to use on illegal activity may be seized and taken away from you
in order to prevent misuse of goods.
It is funny however that they act concerned about individual funds of users "Funds held by users of the site, however, were not so well-protected" since im sure they dont care about
user safety in any way.

cheers

[futureofbitcoin]

What is shameless is the government forcing people to resort to the underground blackmarket for behavior which should be none of their business and certainly not a criminal matter. The government should have no authority over what adults may or may not choose to put into their bodies. The governments actually create these markets by default by dissalowing them in the first place. Clearly people want drugs and they should be able to get them.

Your argument is akin to saying the government is forcing terrorists to resort to underground activities in order to build bombs for suicide bombings, etc. No they're not. They're saying you shouldn't be a terrorist.

Governments do their fair share of shameless activities, but this isn't one of them. It's too bad ethics can not be determined by logic alone, so I can't argue against your point that people can put whatever they want in their bodies, except to say that I disagree. It's extremely irresponsible and selfish. For example, you have to think about how it affects your children and family.

And besides that, it certainly affects others. The smell of marijuana lingers for hours and is absolutely disgusting. Well, I think it's marijuana, I'm not really sure since I know nothing about that kind of stuff. And the areas where there are many drug addicts are quite unpleasant. It really affects the community in a negative way.

It's amazing how so many people confuse legislation with morality.

Ghandi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" quote comes to mind here. I'm too cheap to even buy recreational drugs, but I wouldn't be too cheap to make a donation to a nonprofit organization established to create and maintain a decentralized drug marketplace. Just on principle. For profit is fine, but I'm of course not donating to that.

Uh, no. My moral principle is to not support criminals harming people and their families. Just because my morals differ from yours doesn't mean I'm confusing legislation with morality.

I simply feel that it's wrong both in terms of being illegal and immoral. Too much freedom is a bad thing.

[sdp]

These drug laws are actually a hidden in plain sight revenue generating confiscation excuse.  Laws are thus created to pay the those who confiscate property.  

[calme]

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

doesn't mean I'm confusing legislation with morality.

I simply feel that it's wrong both in terms of being illegal and immoral.

[futureofbitcoin]

Would you like to bold the other 3 words you left out?

Now, as I said in my previous post, morality/ethics isn't something you can prove with logic, there's no real objective truth in it. People have a different sense of morality, and I guess some people simply don't think that doing drugs is immoral. Perhaps some people don't think murder is wrong either, people have been killing each other for thousands of years. Personally I really can't accept either, and feel this way very strongly. But I guess my comments were overly provocative, for which I am sorry.

[calme]

But I guess my comments were overly provocative, for which I am sorry.

You're forgiven, but maybe just smoke a joint and chill with the whole interfering with people's lives thing.

[futureofbitcoin]

But I guess my comments were overly provocative, for which I am sorry.

You're forgiven, but maybe just smoke a joint and chill with the whole interfering with people's lives thing.

What do you think about a person who strips naked in the middle of a busy area and pees in public? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want if they're not in someone else's private property?

Doing drugs not only affects their immediate family, it affects the whole community, and a lot of drugs cause the air to stink for hours, as I've mentioned in an earlier post. Even if it didn't affect others I'd still think it's wrong, but to call it interfering with people's lives is quite simply ad hominem and red herring at the same time.

[Lauda]

Decentralized exchanges will slowly become the norm. People are losing faith in these sorts of markets and this is exactly why. Nobody should trust unknown criminals on the shady darknet and for good reason.

Exactly. A government in reality should serve the people but in actuality they don't. They're just there to give the illusion that they do whilst they siphon off public funds ie your taxes into private pockets. Most governments operate like this sadly.

Nicely said. It is a illusion, but not a good one. It's quite obvious what they are doing. The people are ignorant, weak, foolish. I'm not surprised at all.

Let's say I hold money on Bitstamp. The agencies find out that Bitstamp was doing illegal things with the money, where do they get the right to take away my money just because I was holding it there? On the other hand, were there any legal items on Silk Road?

[calme]

What do you think about a person who strips naked in the middle of a busy area and pees in public? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want if they're not in someone else's private property?

I don't really support the idea of widespread private property outdoors in the trespassing sense. I find it to be a value that the offshoots of Europe (e.g. Canada, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, etc.) value more than the Europeans themselves. They are more likely to just freely roam around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

The nudity part doesn't even register with me as being worthy of discussion. But even if they were having a heroin-fueled orgy on the sidewalk, I would just walk around them and that would be that. I grew up around sex, sex toys, drugs, etc. and don't feel psychologically damaged or anything due to having that exposure. The urine you speak of would be concerning. Perhaps a decentralized urine-related ordinance in which people get allowances of x amount of emergency peeing outdoors in y amount of time? And/or perhaps allow unlimited public peeing provided that pee-collection devices are used. But private businesses could set their own rules concerning that.

Even if it didn't affect others I'd still think it's wrong, but to call it interfering with people's lives is quite simply ad hominem and red herring at the same time.

Stomping out imagined bad behavior before it even exists is interfering with people's lives. If someone's imagination goes wild, that's their own personal issue and they shouldn't drag others into it (and people they don't even know at that). Pattern recognition can be a helpful tool to make sense of the world, but when it's used for making laws, that's called discrimination.

[chmod755]

Also not all of the trading that was going on was illegal:

There were also legal goods and services for sale, such as apparel, art, books, cigarettes, erotica, jewellery, and writing services.

All sellers knowingly supported the Silk Road with their money therefore all of them are criminals regardless of their products.

/thread

[calme]

/thread

This thread is ending WAY too often, guys. It's already ended twice and we're only on the second page. 

[teppupkcos]

What do you think about a person who strips naked in the middle of a busy area and pees in public? Should they be allowed to do whatever they want if they're not in someone else's private property?

I don't really support the idea of widespread private property outdoors in the trespassing sense. I find it to be a value that the offshoots of Europe (e.g. Canada, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, etc.) value more than the Europeans themselves. They are more likely to just freely roam around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

The nudity part doesn't even register with me as being worthy of discussion. But even if they were having a heroin-fueled orgy on the sidewalk, I would just walk around them and that would be that. I grew up around sex, sex toys, drugs, etc. and don't feel psychologically damaged or anything due to having that exposure. The urine you speak of would be concerning. Perhaps a decentralized urine-related ordinance in which people get allowances of x amount of emergency peeing outdoors in y amount of time? And/or perhaps allow unlimited public peeing provided that pee-collection devices are used. But private businesses could set their own rules concerning that.

Even if it didn't affect others I'd still think it's wrong, but to call it interfering with people's lives is quite simply ad hominem and red herring at the same time.

Stomping out imagined bad behavior before it even exists is interfering with people's lives. If someone's imagination goes wild, that's their own personal issue and they shouldn't drag others into it (and people they don't even know at that). Pattern recognition can be a helpful tool to make sense of the world, but when it's used for making laws, that's called discrimination.

Lets ask George Osborn THE UK CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER the second most powerful man in the UK his opinions on new laws

1, legalize all drugs
2, tax all drugs
3, tax prostitution

lol line them up George  
http://atrueindependentscotland.com/george-osborne-chancellor-exchequer-drug-addict/

[calme]

Their opinions don't matter regardless, but if someone in the government doesn't have a lot of drug use experience, it's sort of amusing that their opinions on the topic should matter. I'm less likely to trust anyone who doesn't acknowledge that getting fucked up is super badass.

[Amph]

because those bitcoin were used for illegal stuff too and also the amount of money was too high, i don't see other reasons

thanks god they didn't close bitcoin generally. in russia they wanna do it and drugs are the main reason

isn't russia already out of bitcoin, i heard it got banned there

anyway they can't "close" bitcoin, bitcoin is decentralized...this is one of the beauty about bitcoin...ineluctable