Silk Road founder arrested ...

[guido@witmond.nl (Guido Witmond)]

On 10/02/13 21:23, Jim Bell wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

I'm not so worried.