5 ms·

Buying drugs is not the only illegal thing you can do with Bitcoin though. People who do not understand what bitcoin even is, for instance, are frequently talke

Buying drugs is not the only illegal thing you can do with Bitcoin though. People who do not understand what bitcoin even is, for instance, are frequently talked into using bitcoin "atms" to send money to scammers. It happens all the time. Those are not legal transactions. Not being allowed to buy/possess drugs is a stupid law, but preventing illegal transactions in the public financial system is a feature, not a bug. If you want to buy drugs, do it the old fashioned way - you know, the way society did it for thousands of years prior to bitcoin.

chii 4y ago
i would not call a scam using the word "illegal", even tho it does describe it. A scam transaction is one where one party would not have committed said transaction had they known the truth. It is an unwilling transaction (aka, scam). An illegal transaction is one where both parties are willing, but the state deems said transaction is illegal under their purview. I argue that there should be no such a type of transaction - the state should allow _all_ transactions from _all_ parties that are willing. The illegal part should only apply to an action resulting from the transaction, such as hitman for hire. e.g, The act of paying someone to kill someone else is legal, but the act of killing is illegal. The act of paying someone for an illicit drug is legal, but possession is illegal.
- cweagans 4y ago
  Why move the goal posts? An “unwilling transaction” is either theft, fraud, or coercion, pure and simple. Why should it be legal to pay somebody to kill? That seems insane to me. Especially since the laws in many countries could/would hold financial institutions liable for any murder they inadvertently facilitated by processing that transaction. If it wasn’t disallowed by the state, the private institutions would prohibit it of their own accord. What’s the difference? There are also many laws regarding incitement to violence and the like. Paying a hit man would be that, no? “I don’t want the government to tell me what to do” is childish. Tell me why a society should tolerate the ability to pay for a hitman if we’ve already agreed that murder is wrong?
  - toivo 4y ago
    Assassins have existed way longer than bitcoin. It's emergent feature of free trade. I definately think the upsides of freetrade out weigh the downsides. On the contrary, if we lived in a society where all flow of money goes through some govement entity, we would be in reality some button presses away from Orwell style dystopia.
    - cweagans 4y ago
      > I definately think the upsides of freetrade out weigh the downsides Why? Why is it better to actively facilitate the act of paying an assassin than it is to not do that? > if we lived in a society where all flow of money goes through some govement entity Lovely strawman you've built there. However, I don't think I claimed that all money should flow through some government entity. For the record, I don't think it should. Making the act of paying for an assassination illegal != making some government entity responsible for the flow of all money. Holding both the assassin and the payer responsible for either killing somebody or conspiring to kill somebody doesn't seem unreasonable to me. > we would be in reality some button presses away from Orwell style dystopia. [citation needed] go work in government and then tell me that anything is "some button presses away" from anything else.
      - chii 4y ago
        > Why is it better to actively facilitate the act of paying an assassin than it is to not do that? for assassinations, may be we currently all agree that it isn't good to allow it to happen. However, that is only just an extreme example, for which it is something most people would agree should be illegal. But what about other actions? Killing the ability to transact, regardless of the subject of a transaction, is detrimental to change, and entrenches existing powers/authority. These existing authority should not feel safe implementing new laws, if there are ways that could circumvent them. This makes the authority remain honest, and only implement laws that would have popular support.
        cweagans 4y ago
- saulpw 4y ago
  > e.g, The act of paying someone to kill someone else is legal IANAL but paying someone to kill someone else is definitely illegal, even if they don't kill them. Isn't that what they got the silk road guy on?
  - chii 4y ago
    My point was about what _should_ be, not what is. today, yes, the transaction for paying the hitman is illegal, as is the act of the hitman. What i'm saying is that bitcoins could be a method for which transactions can be made without interference with the state, regardless of the subject of the transaction. The legality of the transaction's subject is a separate argument.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > A scam transaction is one where one party would not have committed said transaction had they known the truth. It is an unwilling transaction (aka, scam). Yes - legally this is fraud. > An illegal transaction is one where both parties are willing, but the state deems said transaction is illegal under their purview. And in every single place I know of in the world, fraud is illegal. Don't waste our time with this.
  - chii 4y ago
    In the context of this discussion, i want to make the distinction between scams, vs transactions that are willing between parties, but is deemed illegal by the state. The discussion in this HN thread has been calling both of the above "illegal", and not distinguishing between them.
    - cweagans 4y ago
      The point is that there doesn't need to be a distinction.
- yunohn 4y ago
  > i would not call a scam using the word "illegal", even tho it does describe it. Is this parody?
Tidal5474 4y ago
Drugs have been illegal for DECADES, not milllenia.
- Jensson 4y ago
  Centuries at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    In the US, opium and cocaine were not regulated federally until the Harrison Act of 1914. So "a century". The first opium war started in 1839, so even in China, "not quite two centuries" is much more accurate than "centuries at least". A good argument could be made that these substances weren't really banned in the US until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The word "decades" is pretty reasonable.
- cweagans 4y ago
  I don’t think I claimed otherwise. I’m assuming you’re talking about this: > If you want to buy drugs, do it the old fashioned way - you know, the way society did it for thousands of years prior to bitcoin. I’m more making the case that you should just go buy drugs with cash instead of pretending that bitcoin is the only way to do it.

chii 4y ago

i would not call a scam using the word "illegal", even tho it does describe it. A scam transaction is one where one party would not have committed said transaction had they known the truth. It is an unwilling transaction (aka, scam). An illegal transaction is one where both parties are willing, but the state deems said transaction is illegal under their purview. I argue that there should be no such a type of transaction - the state should allow _all_ transactions from _all_ parties that are willing. The illegal part should only apply to an action resulting from the transaction, such as hitman for hire. e.g, The act of paying someone to kill someone else is legal, but the act of killing is illegal. The act of paying someone for an illicit drug is legal, but possession is illegal.

cweagans 4y ago
Why move the goal posts? An “unwilling transaction” is either theft, fraud, or coercion, pure and simple. Why should it be legal to pay somebody to kill? That seems insane to me. Especially since the laws in many countries could/would hold financial institutions liable for any murder they inadvertently facilitated by processing that transaction. If it wasn’t disallowed by the state, the private institutions would prohibit it of their own accord. What’s the difference? There are also many laws regarding incitement to violence and the like. Paying a hit man would be that, no? “I don’t want the government to tell me what to do” is childish. Tell me why a society should tolerate the ability to pay for a hitman if we’ve already agreed that murder is wrong?
- toivo 4y ago
  Assassins have existed way longer than bitcoin. It's emergent feature of free trade. I definately think the upsides of freetrade out weigh the downsides. On the contrary, if we lived in a society where all flow of money goes through some govement entity, we would be in reality some button presses away from Orwell style dystopia.
  - cweagans 4y ago
    > I definately think the upsides of freetrade out weigh the downsides Why? Why is it better to actively facilitate the act of paying an assassin than it is to not do that? > if we lived in a society where all flow of money goes through some govement entity Lovely strawman you've built there. However, I don't think I claimed that all money should flow through some government entity. For the record, I don't think it should. Making the act of paying for an assassination illegal != making some government entity responsible for the flow of all money. Holding both the assassin and the payer responsible for either killing somebody or conspiring to kill somebody doesn't seem unreasonable to me. > we would be in reality some button presses away from Orwell style dystopia. [citation needed] go work in government and then tell me that anything is "some button presses away" from anything else.
    - chii 4y ago
      > Why is it better to actively facilitate the act of paying an assassin than it is to not do that? for assassinations, may be we currently all agree that it isn't good to allow it to happen. However, that is only just an extreme example, for which it is something most people would agree should be illegal. But what about other actions? Killing the ability to transact, regardless of the subject of a transaction, is detrimental to change, and entrenches existing powers/authority. These existing authority should not feel safe implementing new laws, if there are ways that could circumvent them. This makes the authority remain honest, and only implement laws that would have popular support.
      - cweagans 4y ago
saulpw 4y ago
> e.g, The act of paying someone to kill someone else is legal IANAL but paying someone to kill someone else is definitely illegal, even if they don't kill them. Isn't that what they got the silk road guy on?
- chii 4y ago
  My point was about what _should_ be, not what is. today, yes, the transaction for paying the hitman is illegal, as is the act of the hitman. What i'm saying is that bitcoins could be a method for which transactions can be made without interference with the state, regardless of the subject of the transaction. The legality of the transaction's subject is a separate argument.
TomSwirly 4y ago
> A scam transaction is one where one party would not have committed said transaction had they known the truth. It is an unwilling transaction (aka, scam). Yes - legally this is fraud. > An illegal transaction is one where both parties are willing, but the state deems said transaction is illegal under their purview. And in every single place I know of in the world, fraud is illegal. Don't waste our time with this.
- chii 4y ago
  In the context of this discussion, i want to make the distinction between scams, vs transactions that are willing between parties, but is deemed illegal by the state. The discussion in this HN thread has been calling both of the above "illegal", and not distinguishing between them.
  - cweagans 4y ago
    The point is that there doesn't need to be a distinction.
yunohn 4y ago
> i would not call a scam using the word "illegal", even tho it does describe it. Is this parody?

Tidal5474 4y ago

Drugs have been illegal for DECADES, not milllenia.

Jensson 4y ago
Centuries at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
- stickfigure 4y ago
  In the US, opium and cocaine were not regulated federally until the Harrison Act of 1914. So "a century". The first opium war started in 1839, so even in China, "not quite two centuries" is much more accurate than "centuries at least". A good argument could be made that these substances weren't really banned in the US until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The word "decades" is pretty reasonable.
cweagans 4y ago
I don’t think I claimed otherwise. I’m assuming you’re talking about this: > If you want to buy drugs, do it the old fashioned way - you know, the way society did it for thousands of years prior to bitcoin. I’m more making the case that you should just go buy drugs with cash instead of pretending that bitcoin is the only way to do it.