On Oct 2, 2013 7:19 PM, "Ted Smith" <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
I know on the Internet people aren't terribly good at being people, but where I'm from it's considered bad form to celebrate anyone being imprisoned. Let's try not to celebrate someone's life being ruined.
I think this is an interesting notion. Yet you misunderstand my apathy for dislike. I simply don't care for this man. Not at all. I think law is served the way it should be, although later than it should be. This law the >citizens of America mostly agree with (hard to believe but true nonetheless) and he will likely be prosecuted fairly. It's miraculous that this man didn't decide to build up an existence in Russia or somesuch country, where he'd be safe from such prosecution. Why he didn't do the ultimate best he could to simply disappear. Additionally Silk Road has been the one example of "bad things with Bitcoin" so as a news message this is good news for those that own Bitcoin, and Bitcoins image of legitimacy. This is the fact I am celibrating. The >actual arrest and takedown are sad results of society and the fact that the owner wasn't hardcore paranoid enough, and I see no reason to celebrate that.
I can think of another "bad thing with Bitcoin" that hasn't yet been implemented. So, I don't think this is "good news for those that own Bitcoin", quite the opposite. If this prosecution is considered legitimate, could the next step be the prosecution of any persons who have anything to do with Bitcoin? Buy it, go to jail. Mine it, go to jail. Keep it, go to jail. Offer it, go to jail. Spend it, go to jail. Receive it, go to jail. If this guy is being prosecuted, even in part, because others are using Bitcoin for illegal purposes, why aren't 'you' (term used generically) who own even one BTC, guilty of the same 'conspiracy'? What is needed here is a mechanism to very strongly deter any such anti-bitcoin prosecutions. (You can imagine what I'm thinking of...). Separately, and somewhat less controversially, would be a mechanism to implement a 'denial of service attack' on court systems. What if, for example, the Feds were no longer able to prosecute 70,000 people per year (the current figure, approximately), but instead were limited to, say, 5,000 per year? Jim Bell