Mr Ulbricht was a kingpin drug trafficker and I really couldn't care less for his technical opinions. If he were to take a modicum of responsibility for his actions, then perhaps there would be a pathway for him to have a voice in the community. His vote is irrelevant until then.
Dismissing ideas because of the origin rather than the content doesn't seem very open minded.
People typically don't consider white collar crimes to be a big deal. (Drug trafficking isn't normally white collar, but in Ulbricht's case it was pretty white collar. Uber, but for drugs?)
Ross tried, on multiple occasions, to hire hitmen to kill people he didn't like. I think once you get into wetworks, it no longer counts as "white collar".
Thank goodness he didn't actually succeed.
Fortunately, the people he hired for the assassinations were really just scam artists who conned him out of some money. The prosecution decided that it would not be worth it for the state to pursue murder charges in such an unprecedented scenario.
On the other hand, the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing.
> the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing
There are a whole slew of problems advocating for the ability for judges to sentence people for crimes they were never convicted of.
judges have some discretion when it comes to which end of the minimum/maximum end of the scale to sentence someone convicted of a particular crime, and using facts entered into evidence and never contested when exercising that is pretty standard.
Also it may be beneficial to judge a person's technical capabilities separate from that person's ethics--both good and shitty people have cool tech ideas.
Because the fact that he is a convicted felon or the duration of his sentence have nothing to do with his technical skill or ability? (Aside from the fact that his failure in opsec lead to his arrest and incarceration.) Just because someone is punished for doing something bad doesn't mean they suddenly stop having good ideas.
Another way to look at it, if you were in a room with Ross Ulbricht and he was telling you to not touch a wire because while you're standing in a puddle because the wire is electrified are you going to ignore him because he's a convict?
Think of the most terrible thing you've ever done, the thing you tell no one. Do you think that other people should instantly discount all your good ideas if they found out about the terrible thing that you've done?
Sure he was a drug dealer, but if you’re that holier-than-thou the attitude should extend to the whole pharmaceutical industry who are just drug dealers in white coats a lot of the time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2131449
> Because he was a programmer, contributing to Linux, people on /. and elsewhere wanted him to not be guilty. They identified with him on some level. As the evidence started to mount against him, it made people look for crazy ways in which he could not be guilty.
Ulbricht's supporters see themselves in him. Each one of them fears the idea of being imprisoned for murder. Therefore, seeing Ulbricht as extension of themselves, they want him to get away with murder.
> Yes, many in these parts think he was just "running a website"