> While I don’t support what went on on the Silk Road – the hacking services and illegal gun trading alone made it more like the Wild West than Utopia, not to mention the alleged murder-for-hire plots – I do support its right to exist. No government should be able to shut down a conglomeration of like-minded people who wish to do business anonymously. We cannot judge the pot dealer or the LSD buyer any more than they can judge our habits and predilections. The morality of this can be debated but the right to an anonymous exchange cannot.
This makes no sense at all. Why the heck can't the 'right' to an anonymous exchange facilitating illegal activities 'be debated'? Just cause the author says so, apparently. Why does he think no government should be able to shut-down a 'conglomeration of like-minded people' (what?) who want to buy and sell weapons, computer intrusions, and murders? I don't know, he doesn't say, it's just obvious, right?
He doesn't 'support' people selling murder on an anonymous exchange, but does 'support' 'the right' to have an anonymous exchange where you sell murder? He thinks you can debate 'the morality' of 'this' (what?), but you can't 'judge' the people doing the thing whose morality you are debating, and in fact apparently can't (can't? ethically?) judge anything that can be described as a 'habit or predilection'?
What does all that even mean? It's just nonsense put together into sentences.
There might be some ethical defense of Silk Road that makes sense, but that sure wasn't it. This is what passes for thought on the techno-libertarian internet? Really, tech crunch?
I think you are misconstruing the author. He supports the right to have an anonymous exchange. That an anonymous exchange makes it possible to hide illegal activities is unfortunate, but unavoidable, in his view. This is similar to the common opinion that encryption software should not be outlawed just because it can also be (and is) used to hide evidence of crimes.
I agree that it's strange to say this isn't up for debate (I don't think there is anything that isn't up for debate and this exact point is being debated all the time). The article seems to be a reiteration of the author's beliefs on the issues of privacy and drugs, to which Silk Road is only tangentially relevant.
To be fair to the Silk Road, they shut down arms-trading after a while (apparently getting guns offline is way too easy and convenient to make it worthwhile), and the murder-for-hire was against the official rules which were indeed enforced (you couldn't go on SR and find hitman listings) - DPR did that on his own, and as the first plot indicates, didn't even need the SR infrastructure to do it. (He communicated mostly over TorChat, according to the indictment, and paid via a wire transfer.)
I think the author seems to believe in the techno-libertarian (I like that phrasing) idea of rights as absolute technical guarantees against government action instead of legal ones. There is a significant difference between saying "No government should shut down..." and saying "No government should BE ABLE to shut down..."
If you believe the former, then the shutdown of the Silk Road doesn't threaten the right to anonymous exchanges or communication any more than the police getting a warrant and searching the house of a murder suspect threatens my right to be secure in my house. But if you believe the latter, the shutdown of Silk Road IS a problem because it demonstrates that being able to technically and absolutely guarantee your ability to engage in anonymous exchanges might not be possible. In the same way that the police searching a suspect's house might trouble you if you believe that the right to be secure in your home means you should be able to physically prevent the police from getting in.
It's an interesting concept, but one that becomes a little hard to justify when you look at what some people do with those absolute rights. The author's defense, that he doesn't support what they did but supports their right do it comes across, at least to me, like a cheap cop out (not to mention a bit nonsensical). I'm not so sure you can easily shrug off your Utopia leading to the Wild West by saying, "Well, I don't support the Wild West".
Your dissection is totally out of context. The author is expressing support for the nature of anonymity, in which Silk Road was an almost perfect example. It's not concerned with the legalities - as far as the US is concerned, anyway - of what Silk Route was facilitating, but the fact that anonymous pockets of people have a right to exist and now the very belief that such a thing is possible on the internet is under threat.
EDIT: Changed 'Silk Route' to 'Silk Road'; the former is actually an Indian restaurant near me!
If I and others want to get together and communicate without divulging our identities, to each other or to third parties, that is our right in a free society. It's not anyone elses business. Not yours, not the NSA's and not the FBI's
Certainly you can gainsay that, as you do. So if that's what you mean by it can be debated, point taken.
But I'd agree with the author that it can't be debated - if you are referring to a free society. Unless we adopt an Orwellian New speak version of the word free.
Western culture, generally, tends towards a "you can think what you like about morality, but don't you dare measure other people up to that standard" mindset. What you have noted is a good example of where such a mindset tends to snap.
Additionally, the person making the statement "I don't think you should measure other people up to your own standard of morality" is actually doing exactly what they purport to rail against.
The technolibertarian generation is still looking for its utopia apparently. Sometimes people forget that democracy is about the majority oppressing the rest.
"There might be some ethical defense of Silk Road that makes sense, but that sure wasn't it. This is what passes for thought on the techno-libertarian internet? Really, tech crunch?"
The same law enforcement tactics we might sadly accept to save us from murder are obviously outrageous when they're applied to crimes we don't really consider crimes.
Quite a lot of the middle class, a vast majority of techies, and a majority of the working class and underclass consider drug use and trafficking to be less of a crime than double parking. The cops and statutes treat drugs as if they were in the same class as rape and murder.
The result is going to be some foolish opinions and practices about law enforcement and privacy.
You can be against something while believing in the right to do it. You can think it's destructive, and implore people to not do it, but believe it's not your place to use physical force to stop it.
Taking about the right of exchange is a bit more nuanced. I suppose you could make the argument that it's moral to possess a drug as long as you don't use it? Like if you own a machine gun but never load it, you're clearly not hurting anyone.
I was just going to quote the same paragraph - the Silk Road was a distribution center of drugs and mayhem. It's an oxymoron to say that people want to do business anonymously. The majority of legal businesses want to be well known and well thought of but with those rare few exceptions who do operate anonymously they have corporate identities for that.
Why? DPR was a much bigger criminal threat than most of the users that went on the SR. You don't let the head of the cabal get away to nab the underlings, that's just plain stupid.
They spent a lot of resources going after the big fish. You generally don't go deep see fishing, catch a marlin, and then trawl of minnows on the way back to port.
Actually, I think the cat & mouse metaphor is fairly apt. The cat actually has a powerful set of advantages... but the mice have numbers, persistence, and in violation of the metaphor, a lot of learning capability. This will not be the first market the feds will manage to destroy, but it will get harder each time.
I am neither applauding nor deploring this; just predicting it.
(One of the things the mice may learn is that the slightest identity leak can give them away. One mis-click on a Facebook login or something and that could well be that. If I were a mouse, I would be working on building something like an encrypted VM image that only contains "safe" software on it, like browsers configured with TOR or whatever, and make sure to do all my business in that VM, and only my business in that VM, while maintaining a "normal" identity on the outside of the VM. The best way to prevent identity leakage is not to share it at all. And I would not install clipboard sharing between VM and host, and I would not enable shared windows; I would deliberately leave the VM console up, and distinctly less than full screen, so it is very visibly obvious that I am either in or not in the VM. I would not use any of the conveniences designed to blur that line.)
Could someone explain how Silk Road handled it's transactions?
I've been reading on it and it seems they kept in escrowe the Bitcoins until the package had been marked as "Shipped"?
Was there a central wallet that one would send/receive coins from or was it flushed on the in/out through random wallets? Can the blockchain be traced to DRP's primary wallets?
Check out the criminal indictment if you are interested, they explain it a bit.
From memory (which may be wrong), it sounded like he had something like 11 internal hot wallets, but while the coins were in escrow he used a database to link what user had what amount of coins. The government seized those 11 wallets, and based on the average daily holdings, now have like $3mm worth of BTC which they transferred to a single wallet (if you google, you can find the public record of that govt controlled wallet).
The indictment also explains that Silk Road used a "tumbler", which would route the BTC's through a series of random wallets so that it was not possible to match a user's initial sending of BTC to Silk Road with the eventual withdrawal by a seller of BTC's to another wallet or exchange.
The silk road did work like an escrow where SR would hold the bitcoins until the buyer finalized (FE for short). Bitcoin would have an internal tumbler that would generate multiple addresses and would make it difficult to track the transactions.
Most vendors would ask for early FE or no product would be shipped but that was too risky for most buyers. FE was supposed to occur when the buyer received the product and gave it thumbs up.
While Atlantis has disappeared, there are three other hidden services currently vying for marketshare:
BMR: 5onwnspjvuk7cwvk.onion/index.php
Sheep: sheep5u64fi457aw.onion/manager/login
Deepbay: deepbay4xr3sw2va.onion/
P.S. federal agents, I don't use recreational drugs (anymore), I'm simply a longtime occasional reader of the SR forum... so please don't come kicking down my door.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|12 years ago|reply
This makes no sense at all. Why the heck can't the 'right' to an anonymous exchange facilitating illegal activities 'be debated'? Just cause the author says so, apparently. Why does he think no government should be able to shut-down a 'conglomeration of like-minded people' (what?) who want to buy and sell weapons, computer intrusions, and murders? I don't know, he doesn't say, it's just obvious, right?
He doesn't 'support' people selling murder on an anonymous exchange, but does 'support' 'the right' to have an anonymous exchange where you sell murder? He thinks you can debate 'the morality' of 'this' (what?), but you can't 'judge' the people doing the thing whose morality you are debating, and in fact apparently can't (can't? ethically?) judge anything that can be described as a 'habit or predilection'?
What does all that even mean? It's just nonsense put together into sentences.
There might be some ethical defense of Silk Road that makes sense, but that sure wasn't it. This is what passes for thought on the techno-libertarian internet? Really, tech crunch?
[+] [-] Confusion|12 years ago|reply
I agree that it's strange to say this isn't up for debate (I don't think there is anything that isn't up for debate and this exact point is being debated all the time). The article seems to be a reiteration of the author's beliefs on the issues of privacy and drugs, to which Silk Road is only tangentially relevant.
[+] [-] gwern|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rainsford|12 years ago|reply
If you believe the former, then the shutdown of the Silk Road doesn't threaten the right to anonymous exchanges or communication any more than the police getting a warrant and searching the house of a murder suspect threatens my right to be secure in my house. But if you believe the latter, the shutdown of Silk Road IS a problem because it demonstrates that being able to technically and absolutely guarantee your ability to engage in anonymous exchanges might not be possible. In the same way that the police searching a suspect's house might trouble you if you believe that the right to be secure in your home means you should be able to physically prevent the police from getting in.
It's an interesting concept, but one that becomes a little hard to justify when you look at what some people do with those absolute rights. The author's defense, that he doesn't support what they did but supports their right do it comes across, at least to me, like a cheap cop out (not to mention a bit nonsensical). I'm not so sure you can easily shrug off your Utopia leading to the Wild West by saying, "Well, I don't support the Wild West".
[+] [-] acron0|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: Changed 'Silk Route' to 'Silk Road'; the former is actually an Indian restaurant near me!
[+] [-] GeorgeOrr|12 years ago|reply
Certainly you can gainsay that, as you do. So if that's what you mean by it can be debated, point taken.
But I'd agree with the author that it can't be debated - if you are referring to a free society. Unless we adopt an Orwellian New speak version of the word free.
[+] [-] DizzyDoo|12 years ago|reply
Additionally, the person making the statement "I don't think you should measure other people up to your own standard of morality" is actually doing exactly what they purport to rail against.
[+] [-] return0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
The same law enforcement tactics we might sadly accept to save us from murder are obviously outrageous when they're applied to crimes we don't really consider crimes.
Quite a lot of the middle class, a vast majority of techies, and a majority of the working class and underclass consider drug use and trafficking to be less of a crime than double parking. The cops and statutes treat drugs as if they were in the same class as rape and murder.
The result is going to be some foolish opinions and practices about law enforcement and privacy.
[+] [-] orblivion|12 years ago|reply
Taking about the right of exchange is a bit more nuanced. I suppose you could make the argument that it's moral to possess a drug as long as you don't use it? Like if you own a machine gun but never load it, you're clearly not hurting anyone.
[+] [-] SCAQTony|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sycren|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Afforess|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simias|12 years ago|reply
Tor hides the source IP of people connecting to the server and tracking bitcoin transactions is pretty difficult as well.
[+] [-] dopamean|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damoncali|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swamp40|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GeorgeOrr|12 years ago|reply
I was never actually a customer, but it clearly filled a need many had. It would be a shame if the void it left isn't filled.
But as covered in this article, it is far more likely that it will be filled and in fact improved on.
The more they tighten their grip ...
[+] [-] gesman|12 years ago|reply
It's a cat and mouse game where mouse have an distinct edge.
[+] [-] jerf|12 years ago|reply
I am neither applauding nor deploring this; just predicting it.
(One of the things the mice may learn is that the slightest identity leak can give them away. One mis-click on a Facebook login or something and that could well be that. If I were a mouse, I would be working on building something like an encrypted VM image that only contains "safe" software on it, like browsers configured with TOR or whatever, and make sure to do all my business in that VM, and only my business in that VM, while maintaining a "normal" identity on the outside of the VM. The best way to prevent identity leakage is not to share it at all. And I would not install clipboard sharing between VM and host, and I would not enable shared windows; I would deliberately leave the VM console up, and distinctly less than full screen, so it is very visibly obvious that I am either in or not in the VM. I would not use any of the conveniences designed to blur that line.)
[+] [-] wcfields|12 years ago|reply
I've been reading on it and it seems they kept in escrowe the Bitcoins until the package had been marked as "Shipped"?
Was there a central wallet that one would send/receive coins from or was it flushed on the in/out through random wallets? Can the blockchain be traced to DRP's primary wallets?
[+] [-] berberous|12 years ago|reply
From memory (which may be wrong), it sounded like he had something like 11 internal hot wallets, but while the coins were in escrow he used a database to link what user had what amount of coins. The government seized those 11 wallets, and based on the average daily holdings, now have like $3mm worth of BTC which they transferred to a single wallet (if you google, you can find the public record of that govt controlled wallet).
The indictment also explains that Silk Road used a "tumbler", which would route the BTC's through a series of random wallets so that it was not possible to match a user's initial sending of BTC to Silk Road with the eventual withdrawal by a seller of BTC's to another wallet or exchange.
[+] [-] JengaGov|12 years ago|reply
Most vendors would ask for early FE or no product would be shipped but that was too risky for most buyers. FE was supposed to occur when the buyer received the product and gave it thumbs up.
[+] [-] GunlogAlm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ledge|12 years ago|reply
BMR: 5onwnspjvuk7cwvk.onion/index.php
Sheep: sheep5u64fi457aw.onion/manager/login
Deepbay: deepbay4xr3sw2va.onion/
P.S. federal agents, I don't use recreational drugs (anymore), I'm simply a longtime occasional reader of the SR forum... so please don't come kicking down my door.
[+] [-] CrunchyJams|12 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/20...
[+] [-] TwoFactor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]