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 i

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.