There's a distinction between allegation (and even conviction/settlement) and fact. On a case this high profile and with such high stakes there's plenty of motivation for spurious allegations. That they didn't follow through is telling

They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. He got scammed instead, which ironically saved him.

I encourage you to read the transcript in which he attempts to arrange the assassinations [1]. It is pretty obvious what he is doing.

To go back to the original point, though, I do not believe that his crimes make his ideas about social networks irrelevant.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...

> They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman.

Not sure why that isn't a crime, but I stand corrected. Thanks for responding with legitimate criticism instead of just downvoting

what’s telling about it? they got what they wanted with an easier case... that doesn’t absolve him of other crimes, it happens all the time

My point was that it shouldn't have been harder. Prosecute everything so that if one charge doesn't lead to conviction, another will. And given the money needed to catch him, the legal expense would have been justified. According to a sibling reply, the hitman was actually a scammer. Not a lawyer, but it seems like they could have easily tried him for attempted murder.

Unless you are purporting to have psychic powers, it seems difficult for you to know he did it outside of conviction.