7 ms·

An Extortionist Has Been Making Life Hell for Bitcoin’s Earliest Adopters

91 points by chollida1 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- MBCook 12y ago
  Am I missing something? I'm not sure what this has to do with an article about extortion. Or are you suggesting the NSA is behind this to make people want to avoid Bitcoin because it's too secure?
pyre 12y ago
> 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 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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tumultuous 12y ago
  Except the contract was against the guy who the cops threatened into being their informant. It was peaceful until the police showed up.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    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.
    - aminok 12y ago
      It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        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.
        aminok 12y ago
        I think you rephrased what I just said.
        jamesaguilar 12y ago
        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.
        innguest 12y ago
        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.
- pilgrim689 12y ago
  It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    The court has to pretend that. We in the public can follow any decision rule we please, including maximum likelihood.
  - ianferrel 12y ago
    Yes. But what does that have to do with investigation? Can't really fail to investigate until proven guilty.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      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.
  - pyre 12y ago
    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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- orik 12y ago
  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 The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. 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...
  - pyre 12y ago
    Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read: peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like [...] the operators of the Silk Road Market to be a claim that the Silk Road Market operators were "peaceful people" that the FBI had no business going after. I don't know anything about the case against Charlie Shrem, but that "and" groups Charlie Shrem and the Silk Road operators into the same bucket. 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.
    - orik 12y ago
      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.
- wyager 12y ago
  Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.
asocial 12y ago
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.” "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.) 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.
- mycroft-holmes 12y ago
  > "voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
  - asocial 12y ago
    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.
    - TehCorwiz 12y ago
      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.
      - asocial 12y ago
        What proof is there that the police are not putting any effort into tracking down the perpetrators?
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
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-assassinations-and-owned-20-million-in-bitcoins-feds-claim-2013-11 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!
- mycroft-holmes 12y ago
  > 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?
  - dghughes 12y ago
    People steal alcohol bum and steal money to get it and it's legal.
- AlisdairO 12y ago
  > 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.
donpdonp 12y ago
A formerly respected tech publication has been making life hell for hackernews readers by resorting to sensationalist link-bait headlines.
- jmuguy 12y ago
  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.
  - unreal37 12y ago
    Makes you scroll down and see the ads at the bottom...
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    Thanks. Something felt off about the article and now that you mention it... the lack of a conclusion is quite off-putting.
- razster 12y ago
  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.
- dang 12y ago
  I agree, and if anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.
nvk 12y ago
Link bait.
nullc 12y ago
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.
jgalt212 12y ago
Hal Finney is sort of a bitcoin Walter White. Someone please make a cable series on this.
keithpeter 12y ago
"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).
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  In the US typically its fireworks rather than bomb making material.
  - aminok 12y ago
    It was actually large firecrackers, used by farmers to scare of pests, that he sold.
maccam912 12y ago
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?

91 points by chollida1 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

MBCook 12y ago
Am I missing something? I'm not sure what this has to do with an article about extortion. Or are you suggesting the NSA is behind this to make people want to avoid Bitcoin because it's too secure?

pyre 12y ago

> 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 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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tumultuous 12y ago
Except the contract was against the guy who the cops threatened into being their informant. It was peaceful until the police showed up.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  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.
  - aminok 12y ago
    It doesn't, but it's also not a non-violent threat. The police were out to lock him in a cage for decades.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      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.
      - aminok 12y ago
        I think you rephrased what I just said.
        jamesaguilar 12y ago
        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.
        innguest 12y ago
        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.
pilgrim689 12y ago
It's innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  The court has to pretend that. We in the public can follow any decision rule we please, including maximum likelihood.
- ianferrel 12y ago
  Yes. But what does that have to do with investigation? Can't really fail to investigate until proven guilty.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    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.
- pyre 12y ago
  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.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
orik 12y ago
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 The part you left out is the most context that that statement was made by Ver, someone interviewed for the article, and no real claim was being made that the Silk Road is peacefully run. 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...
- pyre 12y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I read: peaceful people engaged in voluntary trade like [...] the operators of the Silk Road Market to be a claim that the Silk Road Market operators were "peaceful people" that the FBI had no business going after. I don't know anything about the case against Charlie Shrem, but that "and" groups Charlie Shrem and the Silk Road operators into the same bucket. 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.
  - orik 12y ago
    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.
wyager 12y ago
Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.

asocial 12y ago

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.” "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.) 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.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
> "voluntary trade" makes it sound like said trade wasn't actually illegal Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
- asocial 12y ago
  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.
  - TehCorwiz 12y ago
    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.
    - asocial 12y ago
      What proof is there that the police are not putting any effort into tracking down the perpetrators?

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

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-assassinations-and-owned-20-million-in-bitcoins-feds-claim-2013-11 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!

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
> 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?
- dghughes 12y ago
  People steal alcohol bum and steal money to get it and it's legal.
AlisdairO 12y ago
> 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.

donpdonp 12y ago

A formerly respected tech publication has been making life hell for hackernews readers by resorting to sensationalist link-bait headlines.

jmuguy 12y ago
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.
- unreal37 12y ago
  Makes you scroll down and see the ads at the bottom...
- dragontamer 12y ago
  Thanks. Something felt off about the article and now that you mention it... the lack of a conclusion is quite off-putting.
razster 12y ago
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.
dang 12y ago
I agree, and if anyone can suggest an accurate, neutral title, we'll change it.

nvk 12y ago

Link bait.

nullc 12y ago

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.

jgalt212 12y ago

Hal Finney is sort of a bitcoin Walter White. Someone please make a cable series on this.

keithpeter 12y ago

"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).

ChuckMcM 12y ago
In the US typically its fireworks rather than bomb making material.
- aminok 12y ago
  It was actually large firecrackers, used by farmers to scare of pests, that he sold.

maccam912 12y ago

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?