Hacker News Reader

Comment by downandout | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting tactic, but will likely fall upon deaf ears. They arrested him at the library while he was logged into the site as an admin. That, combined with the fact that he possessed a Bitcoin wallet with ~144,000 BTC (worth ~$28.5 million at the time) in it, will likely carry more weight than any argument that other people were possibly running it. They also admitted on day 1 of the trial that he created SR - they are just saying that he turned it over to someone else and wasn't running it. All the government has to prove now is that he profited from it, which seems like a very low hurdle given the amount of BTC he had.

Based upon all of this, I'd say he has a 99.9% chance of conviction, and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison. This judge will make an example out of him.

View on HN

There seems to be a tendency on HN to pre-judge the outcome of trials and speak beyond the level of one's legal expertise.

Your first words are very prejudicial - "an interesting tactic". It's not a 'tactic', it's part of his defence. It might even be true. And your second paragraph is frankly fairly ridiculous - no trained lawyer talks about "a 99.9% chance of conviction".

It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic.

As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate - "For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 97% conviction rate."

> It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic.

Actually suggesting someone else is behind it would appear to be the defense's strategy. The cross-examination of the DHS witness would be a defense tactic.

There is a substantive difference between strategy and tactics that goes beyond semantics.

I think we're splitting hairs here. In any event, regardless of any tactics, strategies, or arguments they use, he is sure to be found guilty on most, if not all, of the charges.

Would you back up your 99.9% confidence level with a bet? For example, I will send you $1 if he is convicted, and you will send me $1,000 if he is acquitted?

If not, how much would you put at risk for the chance to win $1 if he is convicted?

I realize that there are several ardent supporters of this guy here, so I won't respond to any more of these taunting comments. I actually don't believe he should be facing the kind of time that he is for this, but I think he has no chance of acquittal. Whatever your opinion of SR, Ross Ulbricht was sloppy and stupid, and that's why he is sitting in a jail cell right now and will likely remain so for the rest of his life.

As for betting with you over the internet, that is a violation of the Interstate Wire Act, and I have no intention of being cellmates with Ross Ulbricht. But, for example, if this bet were offered in a legal sportsbook in Nevada, I would easily put up $10K to win $100 (for a 99% certainty - trying to win $1 is a bit of a fruitless exercise). I believe that I would have a positive edge on that bet.

Granted, the conviction rate of the Justice Department is as high as 97%[1], so it's certainly likely. But if you have had any experience with litigation whatsoever you would know that there's nothing at all that's certain in a high profile trial such as this one.

[1] http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2013/...

Assuming the jury is allowed to hear most of the relevant facts that have been released to the public, he will be found guilty of (at least) the narcotics conspiracy charges. Could there be a mistrial? Sure - those happen for any number of reasons. But he would still be found guilty at a retrial. The facts won't change. While I am no fan of the FBI (or the harsh prosecution and sentencing of non-violent offenders in general), in this case they appear to have done their job quite well and are going to get their pound of flesh. They methodically built a slam-dunk case - largely with the help of Ross Ulbricht himself.

"They" the defense, didn't suggest anything, they got the prosecution's witness to admit that the DPR identity was believed by the investigator to have changed hands.

> and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison

Does this contain an attempt to have someone killed? Or is it just running an online marketplace? If it's the latter I can't see how the sentence could be so harsh. Tax evasion tops.

In the US, conspiracy to distribute narcotics can carry up to life in prison. The sentence is based on the amount and type of drugs involved in the conspiracy - there is actually a table [1] that determines the offense level (which is then used with another table to determine the sentence [2]). In this case, because of the sheer volume of drugs sold via SR, if found guilty on the drug charges alone (he also faces several others) he would be guaranteed a multi-decade sentence.

Specifically, he's looking at a base offense level of 38, plus 2 points for distribution "through mass-marketing by means of an interactive computer service," for an offense level of 40. If he has no criminal history at all, that puts him in the 292-365 months (~25-30 years) in prison range on the drug charges alone. If he also gets the 2 point enhancement for making "a credible threat to use violence, or directed the use of violence" as has been alleged, then he would automatically be looking at 30 years to life since his offense level would be 42.

[1] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 (see "drug quantity table")

[2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab

Wow, sounds like the legislation itself in the U.S. is immoral and unethical.

Wow. It's crazy to see the difference between jurisdictions in this case.

I took the time to look up the laws[1] for my country and found (disclaimer I'm no lawyer so I might be wrong) a maximum sentence of 5 years for anything related to drugs (including possession and Trafficking)

Were the US sentences always that high or are they a result of the "War on Drugs"?

[1]http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.ht...

Even in the 70s when Nixon declared "War on Drugs" he was repealing previous mandatory sentences introduced in the 50s. It was in the 80s that the huge mandatory sentences for "Crack" cocaine and lesser ones for other "hard drugs" were re-introduced. Some states also had mandatory sentences throughout this time.

I'm late to the party, but you can (theoretically) receive the death penalty in the US from the federal government for operating as a drug kingpin.

There's some unsettled aspects that may allow you to appeal that sentence, but it's technically on the books.

Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can't just go there and build a system that is a potential threat to the USD world reserve currency and to the power of the FED.

Silk Road doesn't pose a potential existential threat to the USD, and neither does Bitcoin. This vastly underestimates the strength of the existing global economic structure, and overestimates the impact of what is, essentially, a slightly higher-tech way to launder money and buy drugs on the internet.

I understand some Bitcoin fanatics of the cryptolibertarian and anarchist persuasion would like to believe that anything not a blockchain is a house of cards destined to tumble, but everything Ulbricht is charged with would still be a crime if the Silk Road ran entirely on dollars and cents, so to me, invoking conspiracy doesn't really pass the smell test.

If the government weas really that afraid of dark markets, or bitcoin, one would expect it to take heavier action against sites like Coinbase, or other open businesses which accept it, since they have far greater potential of spreading Bitcoin to the masses than inherently illegal sites like Silk Road, which would make most people uncomfortable even to know about. Yet, merely holding Bitcoins, or transacting in BTC, is not a crime.

I said "porentialy". As an example: China, Russia, other countries like Iran could start demanding bitcoins for their oil and gas in the future. There is limited number of bitcoins. Limited by an algorithm. The numer of usds is potentially unlimited. I could come up with other examples that could be unrealistic today but possible in 5 or 10 years. So kill the cryptocurrencies while it is still easy. I dont own and have never owned any cryptocurrencies.

I can't even conceive that China, Russia, etc. would one day demand payment for anything exclusively in bitcoins unless they're well aware that the countries they're selling to have enough bitcoins and are willing to deal in that.

Also, there's nothing stopping the US government from simply using BTC itself, or whatever cryptocurrency it sees fit, as it might any foreign currency.

I've never seen any sign that the Fed or the USG actually see cryptocurrencies as a threat.

Again: cryptocurrencies have built in anti-inflation mechanism: you can have just these many bitcoins. You can't inflate out your debt using printing press. Very good feature for a creditor nation, like China. Very bad for debtor nation like the US. Ie The USD monetary base at least doubled since 2008. To deal with the debt. Impossible to do with bitcoins. Or gold for that matter.

It's really sad that there is a possibility for people who are convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes to spend their whole lives in prison.

Non-violent? Sure. Victimless? Debatable.

I think he got 'drug user' and 'drug dealer' mixed up. The former is easy to defend and is 'victimless', the latter, not so much.

I didn't. Sure, offline drug dealers often cause violent crime, but online don't (apart from the accusation that DPR wanted to kill someone, but I stand firmly on the "innocent until proven guilty" side). The only people who buy drugs are the ones who want them, so you can't say they are victims.

It depends on the drug, literally. As dependency for some types leads to addiction which can cause problems, some of those addicted to some particular drug can be said to be victims. Many other drug types are not that harmful and users would be considered consumers. And of course some legal drugs are also harmful (nicotine, alcohol etc)....

What about Facebook or television? Or McDonalds? Once you feel that you have to moralize and keep people from doing things that you think are bad for them, where do you stop?

> Once you feel that you have to moralize and keep people from doing things that you think are bad for them, where do you stop?

Never. Why would one stop? It is a good thing to stop people from doing bad things.

It's not a moralization that drugs are bad for you. It's an objective medical fact of injuries to the body, psyche, collateral damage to bystanders etc.

Not to forget, acting morally is also a good thing. It seems to be a popular idea that acting morally should be avoided, and I disagree.

No it's a good thing to allow people to make their own choices about how they live and how they treat themselves. Not allowing that is unethical.

> Never. Why would one stop? It is a good thing to stop people from doing bad things. > It's not a moralization that drugs are bad for you. It's an objective medical fact of injuries to the body, psyche, collateral damage to bystanders etc.

Overeating, sitting at a desk all day, consuming alcohol, smoking, tanning, etc. all can negatively impact an individual's health. Should those activities, and many more, also be banned?

Acting morally is an important thing, yes, but the problem is that there is no one definition of morality. How should we all behave? By your standards? By mine? The superset of everyone's personal concept of morality would allow and prohibit pretty much everything all at once.

One reasonable(?) baseline for morality could be the golden rule: don't do things that will hurt others or prevent others from freely living their life — i.e. don't murder, injure or enslave others, steal, etc. Or... don't be a dick.

The world is not black and white; it's black and grey.

>"It is a good thing to stop people from doing bad things."

Vague statement.

You're talking about stopping people from doing what you (or others, all besides the person in question) have decided is a "bad" thing.

You fail to realize that you are working off different definitions of "good" and "bad". Those are value judgements, and by definition almost always subjective.

E.g. The OP you are responding to probably has a definition of "good" and "bad" that takes into account victimless crimes, thus precluding all the "bad" from actually being "bad" if it is self-inflicted. Whereas, it seems you have a definition of "bad" that blanketly covers anything detrimental to an individual, self-inflicted or otherwise.

It's no wonder that the one group criticizes the other for slippery slopes and "where will you stop". Because you've drawn arbitrary lines, leading right back to the idea of subjective value judgements regarding "bad".

Personally, I hate arbitrary lines and definitions. Irreducible first-principles should be used to derive more complex ideas and constructs; and that is imperative if we are ever to have a truly fair and free society.

Online drug dealers may not cause violent crime directly but you have no idea what their supply chain looks like. Unless they are manufacturing the drugs themselves, which is unlikely for most big-money drugs, there is likely blood in their supply chain.

He also allegedly hired a hitman to take out 6 people. The hits weren't executed because the hitman was undercover but if this is true then I have no sympathy for him.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/silk-road-...

> allegedly

I have lots of sympathy for a man who was accused of something, smeared in the eyes of the public (and potential jurors), but wasn't even charged with that crime!

He was charged for it - it is part 4 of the "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" charge in his indictment:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/Ros...

DPR allegedly hired a hitman, but now we have doubt as to the identity of DPR when those events occurred.

You could potentially argue that the drugs side is victimless. But assuming that the false ID stuff is true, then that's much less likely to be - the I would suspect that a fair percentage of people buying false IDs online are doing it to help with pretty nasty activities.

You might want to have a think about what the drug trade does and has done to some South American and East Asia counties before you cry victimless.

A legalised drug trade could be victimless, but not the one which exists now.

That's true, but that's much more the consequence of the legal status of most drugs and the "drug war" policies. I would argue that online marketplaces are solving this problem, not making it worse.

That makes absolutely no sense. The online marketplace suppliers are getting their supplies from the same wholesalers, and charging similar prices.

How are they any different?

I hate to be pedantic, but, bitcoin wallets don't contain dollars. You can express bitcoin value in dollars, but that's a number that can change on a daily basis. It's like saying "he had a stock portfolio with $28 million in it"

Yes, you are being pedantic. I did, however, edit the comment to make it more clear in case anyone else feels like being pedantic.

If you hate being pedantic, why be it?

Here's my perspective as a chronic pedant: my inherent* value system puts a high value on completeness of knowledge/understanding and clarity. But as a socially-aware human, I recognize people's dislike of pedantic behavior.

Life is a fairly constant battle between satisfying my brain's need to provide clarity and not annoying people with often excessive or unwanted detail.

Sometimes the itch to correct is strong enough that it's very difficult to ignore, even though I know it probably won't be well-received.

* I say inherent because while I consciously value knowledge/clarity, I'd presently like to move past such strong obsession but I'm working against a couple decades of all the small events that have shaped my brain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com