He seems like a smart guy and a good guy overall...(yes, I know he allegedly attempted to hire a hit-man and we can't tolerate crime etc. etc.)
This is one of the all-time great HN quotes.
This is one of the all-time great HN quotes.
I'm disgusted by people trying to claim he is anything but a horrible person while trying to brush away the fact that he paid for people to be murdered. Sure, no one was killed, but that's only by the grace of his stupidity, and massive ego.
HN might hate the war on drugs and love people that write code and live in the valley but its embarrassing that self described smart people could fall so low as to latch on to that while ignoring the undeniable horrible things he did. He wasn't a smart guy, he wasn't a good guy, its like people didn't read the transcripts where they went through his journal detailing everything he did.
Given that there were people arguing Hans Reiser was unfairly convicted even after he confessed to murdering his wife, and suggesting that imprisonment was a waste of his talents, I am not particularly surprised by any expression of nerd supremacism any more. Saddened, but not surprised.
Allegedly, there's not actual evidence this actually happened... nor did the prosecution attempt to go after those charges... nor has anyone traced the actual people who were supposedly murdered (their identities don't exist -- they aren't real people), nor has anyone validated the bitcoin transactions that supposedly transferred $750,000
The fact that he was scammed and no one was murdered is irrelevant, completely and utterly, and only goes to show he's not as smart as he thought he was. He's still just as evil for trying and it more importantly celebrating when he was told it was successful.
Agreeing with tptacek, again, pretty sure your last statement is false.
The evidence is pretty damning.
Look... I'm not trying to justify what DPR allegedly did. All I'm saying is I see some positive qualities in him. Very different from a hardened and callus mob boss. Maybe it's just youth and he would have eventually become that, but I don't think so.
People do things, but it isn't necessarily the sum of what they are.
For reference, see comment about Sammy Gravano below. By ratting out others, he served only a few years after a lifetime of crime and murder. They let him out, relocated him with enough resources to start a company, (presumably to catch some bigger fish), and he continued with crime. Because, it is what he was at his very basic. A criminal and a murder. I simply don't see that with DPR. And comparing the two cases, I don't see what I consider justice. It pains me to see this guy locked up for life. It's just a personal opinion. I don't expect the justice system to honer my feelings. That's all.
I don't understand ideas like this. Do you think mob bosses don't love their children? As in, that somebody who is capable of love is somehow... I don't know... less culpable? If anything, one should argue that it's the psychopaths who are truly incapable of empathy are the ones who are 'ill' !
I believe your difference with me and others on this point is that you do not see the turning over of hundreds of unlicensed medicine merchants to the hands of the USG to be destruction of innocent lives or, indeed, in any way unethical. You'd phrase it like "These HNers are literally saying murdering someone is better than turning over information on drug dealers to the authorities".
If the extortionist was going to expose the operating covers of US agents worldwide, the execution of the extortionist would be accepted by many. I fail to see much of a defensible distinction in this particular instance.
Edit: I should add I'm only referring to the kill-the-extortionist deal, none of the others (now it's up to 5??). And Ross certainly deserves blame for running stuff so poorly that he could end up blackmailed or endangering his customers in the first place. If true, it's as bad or worse than Telegram or Cryptocat, in terms of putting people in danger.
> 09/30/2013
> Had revelation about the need to eat well, get good sleep, and meditate so I can stay positive and productive.
(excerpt from his journal: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GX-241...)
He doesn't look stupid?
Ulbricht was not a smart guy. This was obvious from his various writings, examples:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/an-inte...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/04/29/collect...
He talks at length about his philosophy in a way that seems superficially intelligent, until you actually scratch the surface and discover that what he was saying was internally contradictory and had no intellectual merit.
For example:
Firearms and ammunition are becoming more and more regulated and controlled in many parts of the world. We actually had a site up called “The Armory” ... if we can find a model that works where people can get the equipment they need to defend themselves and their families despite what the state wants and often in defense of the state itself, I would be more than happy to provide that.
The Armory, lest we forget, sold bazookas and RPG launchers. The awful oppression he is rallying against here ("in many parts of the world") is usually a highly popular policy that's completely uncontroversial. From the perspective of people living in these places being able to buy sub-machine guns online and have them delivered to your door is not some kind of non-violent libertarian utopia. It's just horrible.
Just a few paragraphs later he is saying
We don’t allow the sale of anything that’s main purpose is to harm innocent people
His deep lack of technical knowledge was revealed by this sentence:
I’m not one hundred percent on this, but I don’t think it’s possible to do a DDoS over Tor
Ulbricht routinely conflated libertarianism, agorism and anarchism as if they are all the same. His knowledge of economics was as flaky as his knowledge of political systems:
There is also nothing morally wrong with [cartels]. If a cartel were to form, I would not attempt to break it up unless its members were breaking other rules. If you want an explanation for why cartels are nearly impossible to maintain in a free market environment, please read “Man, Economy and State” chapter 10, part 2, section D
I was curious what kind of economics textbook would state that cartels could not form in a free market. It turned out to be a book written by "the founder and leading theoretician of anarch-capitalism" (quote from wikipedia). The chapter he refers to is available online. It is a tedious text that contains no references to real world examples at any point. In fact the entire thing is abstract philosophical argument, without any attempt to cross-check against data, yet it purports to explain real economies.
Nobody smart would actually make such an absurd claim or cite such a text to support it.
Finally, for all you people who think Ulbricht was some heroic martyr for the war on drugs, here is what he had to say about it:
If prohibition is lifted, most people here will go away. You’ll go back to your lives and get your drugs from whatever state certified dispensaries are properly licensed to sell to you. Drug use will be as interesting as smoking and drinking .... If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way.
Ulbricht didn't actually want the war on drugs to end because ultimately what he wanted was anarchy.
He got Silk Road up and running. He was a grad physics student who had authored some papers. He is relatively intelligent. Objective fact.
Look, it's OK to be emotionally invested in some of the ideas Ulbricht stood for. That doesn't change the fact that many of the statements he made are flat wrong or simply contradictory.
and it's OK because we all do this. I always find that kind of comment a bit too harsh because we always tend to forget people we judge are just humans like us.
I'm sure you have contradictions of your own in your own lifestyle. And I'm sure you would look stupid by your non/partial knowledge of some subjects to some people... Doesn't mean that you are stupid.
Also a private journal is something non-relevant because if you have one (I do have mine) take a look at what you wrote a few weeks or months or years ago and you will see they generally look pretty stupid, or they were in the moment, or you just didn't care because you thought no one would be reading it.
Jack Anderson would possibly be dead since the conspiracy only halted when Watergate happened.
Surely there is redemption for Ross. Colson spent less than a year in prison even though the others (eg G Gordon Liddy) admtted they were planning to kill Anderson.
He was a physics student, an eagle scout, he started a book recycling business that gave 10% to charity. He had some (however misguided) philosophical ideas. He got poison ivy picking trash out of a tree for Pete's sake. Positive qualities... and there are plenty more.
If you sat down and had a beer with the guy I guess you wouldn't think "criminal". I'm betting if you sat down and had a beer with Sammy Gravano you would be hard pressed not to think that.