So, if I paid someone $1 to commit murder then it wouldn't be egregious? People are judged on the crime they committed not how they benefitted off of it.

EDIT: Note the parent used to claim that $2000 for Malware isn't worth going to Jail for 40 years because its only $2000.

> So, if I paid someone $1 to commit murder then it wouldn't be egregious?

A straw man. Stealing $1 is certainly isn't as serious than stealing $100k. And creating malware is closer to theft rather than murdering people.

The "facing 40 years" is a quirk of the US justice system. While still often out of proportion he's not going to get 40 years.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-underst...

Why do people in discussions base the punishment on the $2000 he is accused of having earned not on the act of selling a cyberweapon?

If I sell someone Anthrax for $1, my punishment should be based on the $1 amount?

$2000 is what he sold the malware for from what the post says, not the damages that the malware caused.

It was ~$2000 per sale, not total amount of sales worth $2000.

I also question if the conversion of BTC worth was based on what it was worth back when the alleged crime was committed.