Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I feel torn about this because it seems there was good evidence for attempted murder- and I cannot understand why they never tried him for that (seemingly larger) crime. However, for the crime he was actually found guilty of, the sentence was unfair and unreasonable. It seems they unethically sentenced him for crimes he was not even ever charged with.

I'd also argue he almost certainly saved a huge number of lives with Silk Road: the ability to view eBay style feedback and chemical test results makes buying illegal drugs far safer than buying them on the street. On Silk Road people could buy from a reputable seller with a long history of providing unadulterated products, and could view testimonials from other buyers who had sent the products for chemical analysis.

Not going to comment on the murder part as that’s well discussed here.

I would take issue with assuming that it was net positive with ratings. Given the anonymous nature handling bots spamming fake reviews would be even harder to catch here, and you ultimately don’t know who ended up addicted/hooked/DUI’s etc from the easy availability this provided. I’m not sure the total effects could ever be qualified, but it’s not like unadulterated drugs are automatically safe. Just look at how many lives pharma-grade opioids ruined, even though they were “safe”.

That’s also not to mention guns and all kinds of other dangerous & illegal parts of it.

I do not understand why he pardoned this guy when he’s supposedly anti-drug and anti-cartel.

(SWIM’s experience with Silk Road):

For LSD there existed a third-party forum, where a group of (supposedly) vendor-neutral, unaffiliated individuals would purchase samples from vendors, send them to private or state-sponsored labs around the world and publish/discuss the results (often with online links to lab results).

Yes, of course vendors could have also attempted to infiltrate these forums. But as enough of these functions were provided by/for the community, the profit incentive tilts. If you ran a vendor account on the Silk Road, your effort was better spent maintaining/improving good infosec and mail/postal security. Some techniques they developed were quite innovative, the professionalism was evident.

Ross’s story is fascinating and tragic- as everything that’s said for and against his character is generally true. Silk Road was built on naive yet admirable ideals. It fostered a special community, some of which really did reflect those ideals. He got in over his head, and really did try to have someone killed.

Though, the details on that latter point are a bit more complicated- authorities had infiltrated Ross’s inner circle- the motive and the ‘hitman’ himself were fictional. Ross still took the bait though, which is pretty damning. Until that point, they weren’t sure they had a sufficient case on him.

loading story #42795641
loading story #42796099
Something anyone with an addict in their life needs to know:

While substances can efficiently help someone destroy their life, keeping them away from drugs won’t stop them from destroying their lives. There’s something already broken in these people that they need to fix before it’s too late.

There are perfectly legal alternatives that can be just as effective with a little more effort. Putting heroin in your arm is just quicker than downing a fifth of vodka, or chasing dopamine at the dog track.

loading story #42798782
loading story #42798828
> That’s also not to mention guns and all kinds of other dangerous & illegal parts of it.

I think it isn't mentioned because Silk Road didn't actually facilitate any selling/buying of weapons or any items "whose purpose was to "harm or defraud."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace)#Produc...

> I do not understand why he pardoned this guy when he’s supposedly anti-drug and anti-cartel.

He's the candidate that was preferred by Christians, yet probably he was the least Christian-like candidate. Just today/yesterday he criticized a Bishop for values that are clearly Christian, people seem to swallow it. I'm pretty sure trying to add logic/reasoning to the choices he makes is a lost cause.

loading story #42800967
loading story #42796070
loading story #42800929
loading story #42795175
loading story #42796716
i think this points to a bunch of weird crypto people are actually in charge of a lot of this administration
loading story #42805872
> I do not understand why he pardoned this guy when he’s supposedly anti-drug and anti-cartel.

why do you believe he's anti-drug or anti-cartel?

loading story #42794386
loading story #42795050
Historically, many anti-drug / anti-cartel leaders are actually members of a rival cartel, and want to use law enforcement to fight their wars for them.

The Mexican government has a long history of this. The LAPD’s (well documented for over 50 years) do the same thing.

Trump is a convicted felon with lots of ties to organized crime. Nothing about him pardoning members of some criminal organizations but not others is surprising.

In related news, he signed an executive order forcing prosecutors to seek the death penalty when police are killed, and in the same day pardoned 132 of his supporters that were convicted of assaulting police officers during an event where officers were killed.

loading story #42794491
loading story #42794477
loading story #42794978
loading story #42794813
I can only go off what I read in American Kingpin but from that book, to pardon Ulbricht is absolutely insane.

Not to mention lets compare what Ulbricht did to say Snowden?

Are you kidding me?

It is like we live in some idiot version of the Twilight Zone.

Well, now you probably understand that Trump is not really anti-drug/anti-cartel. Nor do I think he's pro-drug/pro-cartel. I think he doesn't actually care except in how those issues affect his political career and public profile. Many of Trump's more ... let's call them "random" seeming statements and actions make much more sense if you look at them through the lens of "he doesn't actually care one way or the other".
loading story #42797543
loading story #42794941
Its purely transactional. The Libertarians gave him their endorsement and one of the things they wanted in return was this pardon and deregulation.
The libertarian party or a bunch of crypto bros? I don’t get why “libertarians” would care about this one guy?
Ulbricht's career represents many core values of a certain wing of today's Libertarians.

* unfettered and unregulated and anonymous weapons sales. * willful ignorance and rejection of any of the social costs of buying and selling hard drugs. * commerce that operates in a world that is difficult to be taxes by government entities, and ideally anonymously (even though bitcoin is the least anonymous thing in the world)

So are libertarians fighting for complete legalization of drugs? If so, why aren’t they pressing on Trump for that? Why wasn’t that an executive order vs pardoning this guy?
I don't think Trump actually has a lot of Core Beliefs besides do stuff that appears strong on tv.

A large portion of people at the Libertarian convention that Trump gave a speech at would prefer complete legalization of all drugs.

I think it's a belief that a lot of us arrive at early in our lives, many eventually grow out of it.

loading story #42806209
he is just anti-mexico.
It was a promise to his libertarian voters....
> I would take issue with assuming that it was net positive with ratings.

I know this is probably as minority view, but I think if adults consent to buying and using any drug, that should be both fully legal, and their right and responsibility- any negative consequences are 100% their own fault, not the person who sold them. It's probably true that making drugs easier to buy made more people buy them, but I was only considering the ill effects of fraudulently adulterated products. Do the math differently if you don't see it this way.

I don't know how Silk Road was designed, and have never actually used it or anything like it- but I imagine it would be possible to eliminate fraudulent reviews with proper design, and they may have done so. eBay, for example, is almost free of fraudulent reviews because posting a single review is very expensive- you'd need to sell an item to yourself for full price, and then pay eBay their full (rather large) cut to post a single fraudulent review.

As a buyer, you should be able to take a single high effort review that contains something like mass spec chemical analysis results, and further confirm that the reviewer themselves has a credible history of making purchases and reviews broadly across a lot of different sellers. An impossibly expensive to fake signal. This could also be done automatically by the platform- by making the more credible reviews display first.

> I do not understand why he pardoned this guy when he’s supposedly anti-drug and anti-cartel.

I explained this in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787217

Trump is not an idealist- he will promise anything to anyone if it gets power and attention. Previously, he had attempted a political career as a leftist, and switched to the right because it was getting more traction.

> I know this is probably as minority view, but I think if adults consent to buying and using any drug, that should be both fully legal, and their right and responsibility- any negative consequences are 100% their own fault, not the person who sold them. It's probably true that making drugs easier to buy made more people buy them, but I was only considering the ill effects of fraudulently adulterated products. Do the math differently if you don't see it this way.

I'd agree with you if the people that used these drugs did so rationally. That's not the case mostly though from what I've heard. Trauma is often the root cause and that's out of many people's control. From then on it's ub to society to help them.

If a high performing exec wants to buy drugs to function better, sure maybe that's ok but I doubt that's the majority of people.

I proclaimed nearly this exact opinion in the jury box after being summoned between 15 and 20 years ago. They didn't pick me for trial, which was the intended effect. I really did believe it at the time. Nowadays, I just think it's way more complicated and there are no simple or blanket answers.
Re-consenting: this is a different argument than saying more lives were saved because the reviews would remove adulterated products. Again, just look at opioid addiction for very clear evidence of the opposite effect.

It is very clear from what you’ve said that you haven’t used it :) I have browsed it when it was active and I was very pro tor. You’re making a lot of assumptions that simply don’t hold for silk road.

> Again, just look at opioid addiction for very clear evidence of the opposite effect.

I was playing devil's advocate, but agree there is more culpability to a seller if the drug overwhelms your ability to make the choice in the first place- however a lot of very illegal drugs do not do this. More so if you're using emotionally manipulative ads and selling methods as the alcohol and pharma industry do.

No doubt people were buying weed and hallucinogens on Silk Road, but there was A LOT of opioids, Xanax, cocaine, meth, and other highly addictive drugs that change people’s brain chemistry for the worse.
silk road was on the dark web, a place that is oriented 100% around anonymity. This precludes any sort of "elimination of fraudulent reviews" since there's no reasonable way to build any sort of chain of trust.
I explained several ideas to eliminate fraudulent reviews in my comment, that you didn't address. The main thing is to make a review coupled with a purchase that involves a large cut to the platform, so each review is very expensive. Secondly, don't take reviewers themselves seriously unless they've also made a large overall number of purchases to a diversity of sellers- making becoming a credible reviewer also expensive.
The dark web is based around network anonymity.

You can find, and log into, your facebook account, should you have one, here, where I'm sure you would be quite identifiable.

facebookwkhpilnemxj7asaniu7vnjjbiltxjqhye3mhbshg7kx5tfyd dot onion

anonymity doesn't preclude chain-of-trust (really "reputation"). after all, anonymity only means "can't be linked to real-life identity".
> Trump is not an idealist- he will promise anything to anyone if it gets power and attention. Previously, he had attempted a political career as a leftist, and switched to the right because it was getting more traction.

This is a critical point. His explicitly goal is to be an autocrat, there is no other ideology other than what works.

That's why I think the only real bit of him is the one that admires Putin. That is who he wants to be.

It's why his moves seem so random.

The cybersecurity podcast Risky Business interviewed an FBI agent who was deeply involved, I'd highly recommend listening to it if you want that perspective. If I remember correctly, the agents who were investigating the murder for hire stuff were later found to have been stealing some of the bitcoin they were confiscating and the prosecutors fro the Ulbricht case decided they didn't need to bring up those charges to get a conviction (which they obviously didn't).
loading story #42799095
They can try now! Because he is pardoned for the existing convictions not for future convictions
That is interesting. I'd suspect he could possibly be found guilty of attempted murder, and have the sentence reduced or eliminated by arguing that his previous sentence unjustly assumed guilt for this as well, and factored it into the sentence he already served.

If I remember correctly, there were comments from both the prosecution and judge that would basically prove that point- and they allowed evidence related to those other crimes in the trial. If they could prove this misconduct, they may even be able to argue double jeopardy.

There was deliberately no mention of the alleged murders-for-hire during the trial.

The judge said during sentencing that she was giving Ulbricht an incredibly harsh sentence to make an example of him to others who think that facilitating selling drugs is a victimless crime, and she was also angry at the huge stack of nice letters that people sent to the court in support of Ulbricht.

Good luck, when the main investigators have since gone to prison for crimes related to this investigation.
Unless Trump screwed up the paper work, he’ll have been pardoned for past crimes, which includes the murder.
And even if he did screw up the paper work, he could just write another pardon anyway. He can write infinite pardons (for federal charges, anyway).
"for the crime he was actually found guilty of, the sentence was unfair and unreasonable."

Was it? Based on current law in the US?

While I do not know English Common law well, in many jurisdictions, every part of the drug dealing is drug dealing. Even if you never touch a drug and just provide payment processing services, transport or whatever, as long as you are aware of it and profit from it, it is drug dealing. So every transaction on Silk Road would also be his crime. And there were many, many many. On the other hand, for non-first degree murder, in several jurisdictions his sentence would have maxed out at 15 years. First time offender, he could have walked after 10.

loading story #42802234
> I'd also argue he almost certainly saved a huge number of lives with Silk Road: the ability to view eBay style feedback and chemical test results makes buying illegal drugs far safer than buying them on the street.

So will the Trump admin be making any moves on legalization or safe supply? Especially since between Musk and Kennedy's admitted drug use, the white house pharmacy report, and the allegations about the Trump family itself, it seems obvious that the White House appreciates the usefulness of illegal stimulants?

Or is this another case of "in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"?

the benefit wasnt really unique to silk road or ross. it was just a very convoluted, roundabout demonstration of how safe drug use can be when its done in the right environment. legalization would be even safer…
Safer for buyers and users I guess. Based on being able to smell marijuana coming from so many car windows just walking around town, I'm not sure it would be safer for the public. I'm not anti-legalization by the way - I think it's similar to gambling: a mixed bag.
What you are saying is nothing short of the manifestation of pure evil.

Innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until a random hunch is resolved.

The federal government has a long history of manufacturing evidence and this is no different.

Again, pure evil what you are saying.

loading story #42803526
I just can't fathom the lack of self-awareness of people who championed Ross Ulbricht's cause, seemingly because he looks like them, codes like them, and sat in the same public library they frequent or became associated with a techno-libertarian identity. Hundreds of drug and gun dealers are sentenced every week, some certainly unjustly. Where is the outrage for them?
loading story #42796811
My impression is that a big part of the outrage is directed not at the conviction, but at the disproportionate sentence.

I'm not surprised or upset at all that he went to prison, but unless I'm missing a ton of details (and I probably am), 12 years is plenty for what he did.

It's the scale of the crime (he facilitated 10s of thousands of transactions), the judge clearly stated she wanted to make an example of him and give pause to anyone thinking about doing something similar in the future, and she was angry at the many of the letters of support Ulbricht's fans family and friends sent the court.

My memory is she started the sentencing hearing by disdainfully reading a few of them from a pile of them she brought to the court that day.

loading story #42796764
As for the murder part Christina Warren knows best:

The murder for hire bit was always the most bullshit of all the charges. Not only were the fbi agents that were part of that later jailed for their own actions related to the case (including theft and hiding/deleting evidence), it was never real and no one was ever in danger.

https://bsky.app/profile/filmgirl.bsky.social/post/3lgcck6i6...

> it was never real and no one was ever in danger.

Because one of the hitmen he hired was a scammer, and another was an FBI agent. Still clearly a crime to hire them for murder.

Ulbricht's right-hand-man Roger Thomas Clark, who was involved in one of the murder-for-hire conversations, admitted the conversation was real during his trial:

"In his own remarks, Clark didn't comment on that murder-for-hire conversation—which he at one point claimed had been fabricated by Ulbricht but later conceded was real."

Wow! There have been multiple (astoundingly so) arrests of agents who were present in the Silk Road case. As far as I can see:

1 DEA agent for extortion, money laundering and fraud. 1 Secret Service Agent for money laundering. 2 Key advisors in the case.

that was only one of the 6 murder for hires

Chris Tarbell, the guy who arrested ross, talks about it on this podcast https://risky.biz/RB770/ 37:08

Chris Tarbell states that there are logs about 6 imaginary "murder of hire"'s .. none of which actually took place, two were faked by the FBI(?) and four were scams run by third parties outside the USA.

In the absence of any other context it's assumed these were acts of "intent to murder" but that's about it .. logs that look like a duck and probably were a duck.

But no actual murders that anyone could find, no bodies, etc.

If I go to a bar and end up hiring a hitman to kill my wife, and the hitman happens to be a FBI asset, I'm still going to jail.
loading story #42805630
loading story #42808869
You are feeling the same thing that some people felt who wanted OJ Simpson exonerated.
loading story #42795659
The guy is a crook.
There was literally no evidence of an attempted murder. Just an empty and unsubstantiated accusation.
The lengths the FBI went to in one of the murder for hire cases is interesting.

After Ulbricht ordered the hit on one of his forum moderators, the FBI visited him, took all of his computers, told him they were going to be "him" from now on online forever, had him "pose" in a bathtub where they hosed him off and doused him in ketchup to take fake trophy photos, had the "hitman" send the photos of Ulbricht, who famously commented "It had to be done."

Did you just make that up? I have never heard that claim before and searching for Ross Ulbricht ketchup just leads back to your comment, so you seem to be the first person to ever claim this.
You're right, the agents actually smeared him with Campbell’s Chicken & Stars to make him look he just got strangled. You got me!

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/how-the-feds-sta...

>Force got Green to sign a waiver, thereby commencing his role in an impromptu staged torture sting against DPR. Soon Green was being dunked in the bathtub of a Marriott suite by phony thugs who were in fact a Secret Service agent and a Baltimore postal inspector. Force recorded the action on a camera. “Did you get it?” Green asked, wet and wheezing on the floor. He’d felt like their simulation was a little too accurate. They dunked him four more times to get a convincing shot.

There used to be an online archive of every little bit of public information known about the Silk Road's administrators and their court cases. I can't find it anymore. It was over 10 years ago. All I can remember is the site had a weird url.