An Extortionist Has Been Making Life Hell for Bitcoin’s Earliest Adopters(wired.com)
wired.com
An Extortionist Has Been Making Life Hell for Bitcoin’s Earliest Adopters
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/finney-swat/
90 comments
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down
peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like Charlie Shrem and the
operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says
You can gain additional insight into the statement when you look at how Robert McMillian introduces Ver, a few paragraphs back.
Ver put a 37 bitcoin bounty on [the hackers] head.
[Ver] was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison...Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read:
So long as that quote is being faithfully reproduced, I don't see how talking about his prison sentence has much to do with what I'm talking about.
peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like
[...] the operators of the Silk Road Market
So long as that quote is being faithfully reproduced, I don't see how talking about his prison sentence has much to do with what I'm talking about.
I don't mean to say those guys aren't scumbags - I'm sure some of them are.
I just wanted to point out the opinion of the silk road presented in the article was not an opinion belonging to wired but instead it belongs to this Ver guy, who is in fact a criminal.
I just wanted to point out the opinion of the silk road presented in the article was not an opinion belonging to wired but instead it belongs to this Ver guy, who is in fact a criminal.
Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.
It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
The court has to pretend that. We in the public can follow any decision rule we please, including maximum likelihood.
Well, I did make my comments conditional on the allegations being true.
My only point was that the Silk Road case isn't just about the big bad government rushing after innocent people that just want to do their drugs in peace while keeping to themselves, but are caught up in the War on Drugs.
That said, if the law enforcement were forced to presume that you were innocent until convicted, they would not be able to investigate you because they would no longer be presuming that you were innocent.
The statement that I commented on makes the assumption that the admin(s) of Silk Road were doing nothing but providing a marketplace for consensual (though illegal) transactions. If the admin(s) of Silk Road were engaged in a murder-for-hire plot, then I would assume you are ok with the FBI investigating such things (though maybe I shouldn't make such assumptions). Murder-for-hire goes well beyond people just minding their own business.
My only point was that the Silk Road case isn't just about the big bad government rushing after innocent people that just want to do their drugs in peace while keeping to themselves, but are caught up in the War on Drugs.
That said, if the law enforcement were forced to presume that you were innocent until convicted, they would not be able to investigate you because they would no longer be presuming that you were innocent.
The statement that I commented on makes the assumption that the admin(s) of Silk Road were doing nothing but providing a marketplace for consensual (though illegal) transactions. If the admin(s) of Silk Road were engaged in a murder-for-hire plot, then I would assume you are ok with the FBI investigating such things (though maybe I shouldn't make such assumptions). Murder-for-hire goes well beyond people just minding their own business.
Yes. But what does that have to do with investigation? Can't really fail to investigate until proven guilty.
Right. The trial is not where "we find out what happens." It's where the state, having already decided you suck and need to spend some time in jail, needs to prove it to a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt in a formal setting where only legally obtained evidence can be used.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Except the contract was against the guy who the cops threatened into being their informant. It was peaceful until the police showed up.
I'm afraid that "the police were about to find out about me through this guy" does not count as a reasonable excuse for murdering someone.
It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
No enforcement of any law is completely non-violent. That doesn't in any way excuse or justify killing or trying to kill to avoid enforcement.
I think you rephrased what I just said.
It appeared that you were trying to minimize taking out a hit on someone because, to paraphrase, "the police started it." If that isn't what you were doing, my bad, but if it was, then my comment was as designed.
But the police can take out a hit on me if I start a commotion and flee. Then they will pursue me with the intent (or legal right) to kill me and I will be blamed for it.
So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise.
Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made.
So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well.
Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.
So it makes sense to blame the police for starting a commotion that set in motion a situation that would not have arisen otherwise.
Just playing devil's advocate, but the only difference I see here is that the government has a monopoly on law and they hire the police, and the killer that person allegedly hired is not working for the law the government made, but for the law that person made.
So there's no need to pontificate here. This is just the difference between an organization having a monopoly on violence and then acting surprised when others want to make contracts with rules based on violence as well.
Not to mention our current president has ordered the murder of US citizens before but no one is arresting him.
A formerly respected tech publication has been making life hell for hackernews readers by resorting to sensationalist link-bait headlines.
This article also seems to just abruptly end. Been seeing that more frequently lately with stuff posted online. Not sure if its just lazy or poor writing but no closing paragraph makes for a poor reading experience.
Thanks. Something felt off about the article and now that you mention it... the lack of a conclusion is quite off-putting.
Makes you scroll down and see the ads at the bottom...
And this is why I always hit the comments before clicking on the link. I've seen a flux of these bait headlines, only if I know the URL will I click otherwise I will go to comments.
I agree, and if anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.
Pretty sad that all hacker news can find to talk about here is debate about the legalities of drug trade and the ethics of the people involved in them that was inspired by a somewhat trollish one-liner quote in the article, with little to no relation with the actual subject of the article.
The “police have been devoting a huge amount of resources to track down peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade
like Charlie Shrem and the operators of the Silk Road Market,” Ver says, “while evil hackers were busy terrorizing
quadriplegic Hal Finney and his family.”
This is meant to suggest that the police were harassing innocent people while completely ignoring the actual crimes described, of course playing up the typical Bitcoin narrative of the violent, thuggish and incompetent police state.
Left completely unmentioned, is the fact that Bitcoin is designed, and intended, to make it infeasible to track users and enforce laws against transactors. It's an explicitly anarcho-capitalist system. Extortion rackets around Bitcoin are not a bug, they're a feature.
Somehow I think you missed the whole "Every transaction is public" part of Bitcoin.
Cash is difficult but not impossible to track, Bitcoin is ridiculously easy to track by comparison.
Cash is difficult but not impossible to track, Bitcoin is ridiculously easy to track by comparison.
Except that Bitcoin can be laundered quite effectively, and often is. [1] In fact, there are services that do so. [2]
[1] http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/72/how-is-it-poss...
[2] https://bitlaunder.com/
[1] http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/72/how-is-it-poss...
[2] https://bitlaunder.com/
Try and launder a 1Billion to 10 Billion dollor transaction with bitcoin and that's going to fall flat.
PS: For comparison you can fedex ~170,000$ worth of gold in a vary inconspicious 15 LB box. Shipping ~60,000 lb of gold (1Billion$) is much easier to track and more risky.
PS: For comparison you can fedex ~170,000$ worth of gold in a vary inconspicious 15 LB box. Shipping ~60,000 lb of gold (1Billion$) is much easier to track and more risky.
There is no possible way to make gold inconspicuous. The density simply prohibits it: gold reflects easy-to-send parts of the EM spectrum that most anything else will pass.
Your assuming there is a test in place to detect gold in FedEx packages. That's not acutally a hard thing to test and I would be interested in the results.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That doesn't mean it's ridiculously easy to attach a transaction to a specific person. If it were, sites like Silk Road would never even exist.
"voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal (in
other words, like something the police are actually supposed to stop, peaceful
or otherwise.)
Left completely unmentioned, is the fact that Bitcoin is designed, and intended,
to make it infeasible to track users and enforce laws against transactors.
> "voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
That is completely true.
But the police don't arrest people for breaking ethical principles, they arrest people for breaking laws.
So also, in context, not entirely relevant.
But the police don't arrest people for breaking ethical principles, they arrest people for breaking laws.
So also, in context, not entirely relevant.
> But the police don't arrest people for breaking ethical principles, they arrest people for breaking laws.
...Unless the police officer has ethical principles, in which case they will refuse to obey unfair laws. I remember watching an interview with a Danish cop that refused to arrest someone for smoking marijuana inside their own house. I think it's fair to say the government police system encourages unethical people to become cops.
...Unless the police officer has ethical principles, in which case they will refuse to obey unfair laws. I remember watching an interview with a Danish cop that refused to arrest someone for smoking marijuana inside their own house. I think it's fair to say the government police system encourages unethical people to become cops.
Last time I checked extortion and making a false police report was against the law. I think context was that the police are participating in the SWATings while not putting in any effort to track down the perpetrators and at the same time they're putting a disproportionate amount of effort into shutting down otherwise peaceful markets.
What proof is there that the police are not putting any effort into tracking down the perpetrators?
Right, but the police do not decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce. They are the enforcement arm, not the legislative. No one should be alarmed that people when people are arrested for peddling illegal drugs.
> the police do not decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce
They absolutely do. For example, police in Seattle explicitly made marijuana enforcement the lowest possible priority years before Washington legalized it. It was a common sight to see policemen standing right next to people openly smoking pot on the street and completely ignoring them.
The police actually have a huge amount of leeway, and it can be a big problem. They often decide who to prosecute and who to ignore, and their decisions are often driven by race, revenue concerns, or other issues that have little to do with justice.
They absolutely do. For example, police in Seattle explicitly made marijuana enforcement the lowest possible priority years before Washington legalized it. It was a common sight to see policemen standing right next to people openly smoking pot on the street and completely ignoring them.
The police actually have a huge amount of leeway, and it can be a big problem. They often decide who to prosecute and who to ignore, and their decisions are often driven by race, revenue concerns, or other issues that have little to do with justice.
Actually, in 2003, the voters passed an initiative mandating that police lower their enforcement of marijuana in Seattle[1].
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Two-years-later-littl...
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Two-years-later-littl...
That's true, but marijuana was still illegal, and some people were still prosecuted. Ultimately the ones deciding who would be arrested and who would be ignored on a case-by-case basis were the police.
You're correct. My point was directed more towards people, like the parent I was replying to, who defend government actions simply because something is illegal. It would be equivalent to defending people who returned escaped slaves back in the day because it was the law to do so at the time.
Which would you rather have? Police enforcing the laws, or police enforcing whatever they personally felt was right?
If you disagree with the morality of a law, fine - but your assertion that enforcing drug laws is as immoral as enforcing slavery laws is debatable
If you disagree with the morality of a law, fine - but your assertion that enforcing drug laws is as immoral as enforcing slavery laws is debatable
Actually, they do. http://thelawdictionary.org/article/police-discretion-defini...
Police officers can, and should, use their conscience to decide whether or not to enforce certain laws.
If you want a legal precedent, the Nuremberg trials somewhat settled that question.
If you want a legal precedent, the Nuremberg trials somewhat settled that question.
Well, the likely continued impunity of the practitioners of "enhanced interrogation" means that it's a legal precedent that applies only to evil Nazis.
Hey early adopters: you have no doubt heard how easy it is to de-anonymize bitcoin transactions. If someone demands 1000 btc to stop them from "swatting" your house, why not let the police know, send a very small amount to the address they no doubt want the money sent to, and let police take it form there?
"Ver, who was himself sentenced to 10 months in federal prison for illegally shipping explosive across state lines, believes that Savaged is not only the same person who swatted Hal Finney, but also the person who gained access to Satoshi Nakamoto’s email account earlier this year." --quote from OA...
Why does anyone ship explosives across state lines (or anywhere) unless they run a demolition company? Just wondering (I'm in the UK).
Why does anyone ship explosives across state lines (or anywhere) unless they run a demolition company? Just wondering (I'm in the UK).
Hal Finney is sort of a bitcoin Walter White. Someone please make a cable series on this.
Link bait.
The operators of Silk Road were mafioso's that ordered hits on competitors and people they didn't like. The whole, "we're just a bunch of gentle hippie libertarians and the evil police state can't handle how chill and peaceful we are" is both factually and morally false. Please stop repeating it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-boss-ordered-6-assa...
I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. I'm not the police state. I'm common sense. I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
disagree downvotes dont change the truth: Ulbricht ordered kills casually. Physically addictive drugs cause social harm. All the libertarian claptrap in the world doesnt change reality, sorry Rand Paul supporters!
http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-boss-ordered-6-assa...
I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine. I'm not the police state. I'm common sense. I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
disagree downvotes dont change the truth: Ulbricht ordered kills casually. Physically addictive drugs cause social harm. All the libertarian claptrap in the world doesnt change reality, sorry Rand Paul supporters!
> The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine.
I don't think it's asinine. There's clearly reasonable arguments for it: mostly that the consequences to society of harsh crackdowns on drug abuse are worse than those of legalisation - in particular that addicts feel that they have no option but to kill or steal in order to obtain their next fix.
Do I think people ought to do hard drugs? Absolutely not, it's clearly a terrible idea. I just think addiction should be treated as a medical condition, not some righteous moral crusade. Legalisation might be a step too far, but criminalisation isn't clearly a better option.
I don't think it's asinine. There's clearly reasonable arguments for it: mostly that the consequences to society of harsh crackdowns on drug abuse are worse than those of legalisation - in particular that addicts feel that they have no option but to kill or steal in order to obtain their next fix.
Do I think people ought to do hard drugs? Absolutely not, it's clearly a terrible idea. I just think addiction should be treated as a medical condition, not some righteous moral crusade. Legalisation might be a step too far, but criminalisation isn't clearly a better option.
I recently saw an episode of "Anthony Bourdain - Parts Unknown" where he visits Colombia. He talked to locals about the drug trade and one person he interviewed made a very good argument that stuck with me:
Many people see drugs as a single problem with a single solution (eliminate all the drugs). But it's much more reasonable to see it as two problems: trafficking and use. Trafficking would be decimated with legalization and money fighting it could be spent on programs to help users.
Many people see drugs as a single problem with a single solution (eliminate all the drugs). But it's much more reasonable to see it as two problems: trafficking and use. Trafficking would be decimated with legalization and money fighting it could be spent on programs to help users.
Trafficking would be decimated with legalization and money fighting it could be spent on programs to help users.
Yes, as Portugal has shown us.
Yes, as Portugal has shown us.
Minor point but one that I think is valuable. Decimating something is to reduce it by 1/10th. You are thinking of it as an analogy for destroy which it is not.
[deleted](1)
Every dictionary I can find defines decimate as "destroy a large part of." A few of them mention the 1-in-10 definition as obsolete.
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
What about alcohol? Cigarettes? Poker? Penny stocks?
All of these things have contributed to people blowing their savings, futures, and ruining their own lives and their families' lives.
By criminalizing drugs, people who want to fix their behavior are unable to because they're afraid to go to jail.
What we need is support centers, like we have for alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex addicts, internet addicts, and addicts of any other kind. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, and it hasn't worked for drugs.
What about alcohol? Cigarettes? Poker? Penny stocks?
All of these things have contributed to people blowing their savings, futures, and ruining their own lives and their families' lives.
By criminalizing drugs, people who want to fix their behavior are unable to because they're afraid to go to jail.
What we need is support centers, like we have for alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex addicts, internet addicts, and addicts of any other kind. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, and it hasn't worked for drugs.
I agree. Social campaigning will be much more effective than prohibition, that's what we do for legal drugs which also are devastating for addicts.
Prohibition does absolutely nothing to control drug demand. It makes the supply swell until it overruns law enforcement's efforts to stem it. It makes hard drugs with stronger effects for a small dose more profitable for smugglers, because they're easier to ship. And as American alcohol Prohibitionism showed in the 20s, it makes drugs more popular among the underaged.
Prohibition does absolutely nothing to control drug demand. It makes the supply swell until it overruns law enforcement's efforts to stem it. It makes hard drugs with stronger effects for a small dose more profitable for smugglers, because they're easier to ship. And as American alcohol Prohibitionism showed in the 20s, it makes drugs more popular among the underaged.
What's this argument that if N vices are legal, then N+1 vices should be legal too? Yes, it's true that alcohol can ruin your life, but that fact is not a good argument for legalizing heroin.
It depends how you read it. If proponents of banning a drug (say, marijuana) argue that it should be banned because it is harmful and will threaten the fabric of society (or something), while more dangerous drugs are legally and readily available, and have failed to destroy society, parent's argument is reasonable.
> I'm common sense.
Common sense is a great place to start from! Then you do science. You predict what will happen under various policies; you try some options and observe what happens; you revise your understanding of the problem; and repeat.
From the few places where people are thinking that way, it seems like the best approach is neither criminal law nor pure legalization, but regulation, treatment and harm reduction. There are some examples in this report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy:
http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Globa...
But we still have a huge amount to learn, because for the most part we're not even trying -- just sticking with the "common sense" approach of looking for a larger hammer, when hitting the problem with a smaller hammer failed to work.
Common sense is a great place to start from! Then you do science. You predict what will happen under various policies; you try some options and observe what happens; you revise your understanding of the problem; and repeat.
From the few places where people are thinking that way, it seems like the best approach is neither criminal law nor pure legalization, but regulation, treatment and harm reduction. There are some examples in this report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy:
http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Globa...
But we still have a huge amount to learn, because for the most part we're not even trying -- just sticking with the "common sense" approach of looking for a larger hammer, when hitting the problem with a smaller hammer failed to work.
> I also support 90% of the drug laws out there. The argument that heroin and meth should be legal is asinine.
Why exactly?
> often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
You realize the drug laws you support create this behavior, right?
Why exactly?
> often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
You realize the drug laws you support create this behavior, right?
People steal alcohol bum and steal money to get it and it's legal.
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
What do you think about state organized lotteries then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA
What do you think about state organized lotteries then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA
Asinine? How many people do you think are dying from opiate use now, compared to when prescription painkillers were easier to get? Heroin use has actually had a massive increase due to the laws you support. Imagine if opiates were legal and well regulated. So many families might be dealing with substance abuse rather than death of a loved one due to guessing what's in an illegal plastic bag. Similar to moonshine which caused blindness and death during prohibition.
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives
So does Farmville.
So does Farmville.
Opiates build dependency that takes weeks to recover from, and 90% of heroin addicts relapse. Lets not kid ourselves.
You haven't met a Farmville addict, I take it?
[deleted]
> I don't care if the meth dealer is a hip and gentle guy. He's empowering others to destroy their lives
You do know that Paul Erdös, the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century (if not ever) was a meth addict, right?
I'm not saying "meth is good"; but that blanket generalizations are bad.
You do know that Paul Erdös, the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century (if not ever) was a meth addict, right?
I'm not saying "meth is good"; but that blanket generalizations are bad.
> Paul Erdös [sic]...was a meth addict
Do you have a reputable source for this? Wikipedia and a quick "Paul Erdos meth" Google were both fruitless for me.
Do you have a reputable source for this? Wikipedia and a quick "Paul Erdos meth" Google were both fruitless for me.
You will have a better luck with "Erdos amphetamines" or something like that.
Still, uh, using amphetamines or amphetamine analogs in controlled dosages from pharmaceutical sources is a pretty normal thing to do, a pretty normal thing that doesn't seem to cause a whole lot of problems for most people. We give it to children to make them sit still, and many adults take it, too.
There are some analogs, like Methylphenidate, which are said to be less addictive, but many people prefer, and use Adderall, which isn't, and both are deemed to be safe enough to give to children in small doses. We even give straight up Dextroamphetamine to some people (though it's rather less common)
I mean, dosage is super important, of course, and so is purity, but yeah, lots of people take small amounts of amphetamines without problems.
Edit: As someone else pointed out, methamphetamines are similar in effect to, but generally more dangerous than amphetamines, and the latter, I believe, is what Erdos, and most everyday users under medical supervision use.
Still, uh, using amphetamines or amphetamine analogs in controlled dosages from pharmaceutical sources is a pretty normal thing to do, a pretty normal thing that doesn't seem to cause a whole lot of problems for most people. We give it to children to make them sit still, and many adults take it, too.
There are some analogs, like Methylphenidate, which are said to be less addictive, but many people prefer, and use Adderall, which isn't, and both are deemed to be safe enough to give to children in small doses. We even give straight up Dextroamphetamine to some people (though it's rather less common)
I mean, dosage is super important, of course, and so is purity, but yeah, lots of people take small amounts of amphetamines without problems.
Edit: As someone else pointed out, methamphetamines are similar in effect to, but generally more dangerous than amphetamines, and the latter, I believe, is what Erdos, and most everyday users under medical supervision use.
He is probably referring to how he took amphetamines, which aren't meth.
Paul erdos was an amphetamine user in his later life.
Paul Erdös was prescribed Ritalin in 1970 when he was nearly 60 years old and had already produced the bulk of his work. He was probably addicted but never varied from his doctor-prescribed dose. Also, Ritalin is nowhere near the same as Methampetamine.
He was addicted to amphetamine (Benzedrine) or methylphenidate (Ritalin), not methamphetamine.
Argh! I stand corrected. Apologies for the confusion.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Um, the "operator(s) of Silk Road Market" allegedly attempted to hire a contract killer. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of peaceful, if true.