3 ms·
There are some people who remain open to the possibility that he never actually believed that people were being assassinated. It seemed to me that the whole ass
by 55555 10y ago
There are some people who remain open to the possibility that he never actually believed that people were being assassinated. It seemed to me that the whole assassination thing was a barely believable backstory used for a shakedown. Ulbricht conceivably paid the ransom to prevent the leak of user data, knowing full well that nobody was being killed. I came to this conclusion after reading a lot about this story; not just headlines (I did not read this article however).
I'm just explaining that many people are not just "glossing over" that. But who knows what really happened.
In the event that he thought someone really was being killed, it doesn't detract from the motivations he had in the beginning. Power corrupts, he created a monster, etc.
- tptacek 10y agoI know I can't write a comment that will settle this particular controversy but I feel compelled to point out that it's only on an internet message board that someone could believe that an elaborate shakedown involving the creation a record of having ordered and verified multiple assassinations, a shakedown in which your eventual vindication depends on a favorable account from the person shaking you down, is the less likely explanation of events than someone simply ordering someone's assassination --- which, if you follow the news, is something that happens all the time, and something that almost always has this exact outcome. This particular debate reminds me of the epistemological certainty people had about Hans Reiser's serial killer friend, and the notion that the police were fixated on Reiser and not the serial killer because they were put off by nerds.