[zelly]

The best darknet hit-for-hire idea I've seen is the one that uses a prediction market. You publicly bet $500k that Joe is not going to die in 1 week. Whoever takes the other side of that bet has an interest in making Joe die.

(Assume the prediction market is completely decentralized and untraceable. Assume there is an accurate way to determine the outcomes of the events in a manner compatible with being untraceable and decentralized.)

[three_seagrass]

Fun Fact: These types of bets are how life insurance started, with milk maids and cow pox.

[jhardy54]

Assuming the prediction market isn't untraceable, would this be legal?

If Joe dies and someone gets $500,000 richer I'm sure the police would be very interested to investigate the transaction, but would the bet itself actually violate any laws?

[michaelmrose]

Laws aren't programs and judges and juries aren't required to interpret them like a robot. Odds are that a reasonable jury would find you had hired a hitman and just convict you and move on.

Please see people who are convicted on limited or circumstantial evidence because everyone is pretty sure they did it. Example Hans Reiser.

[jhardy54]

> Laws aren't programs and judges and juries aren't required to interpret them like a robot.

I understand that HN and Reddit like to repeat this fact, but it's really not a useful answer to the question I asked. I think you're saying "no, it's not illegal", but you've masked that opinion with trivia.

> limited or circumstantial evidence [...] Hans Reiser

Reiser plead guilty to murdering his wife and disclosed the location of her shallow grave. I'm not sure how limited or circumstantial that is.

[michaelmrose]

Reiser pled not guilty and successfully eliminated all conclusive evidence of his guilt. After they convicted him anyway he disclosed the location of her shallow grave.

I don't think it's masking the issue with trivia at all. If you conspire to kill someone or indeed to commit any crime and your defense rests on a cute use of the law to remain technically on the side of the law while obviously trespassing beyond it you are only as safe as you can convince the jury you are.

If you are more interested in the actual law we could look at justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

Section 1958 renders it illegal: 1) to travel or use facilities of interstate or foreign commerce; 2) with intent that a murder in violation of State or Federal law be committed;

Looking at my state WA states law

RCW 9A.32.030 Murder in the first degree. (1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when: (a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person;

If you in effect arranged for someone to die by betting a large sum of money on a prediction market no judge or jury will pick nits and disregard your intent while placing such a bet.

[ideals]

Aren't deadpools a thing? ...checks duckduckgo... yep

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_pool

https://oddsninja.com/celebrity-dead-pool-betting/

[rahimnathwani]

Right, and the person who gets $500k poorer is above suspicion, because their apparent incentive (after making the bet) is to keep the person alive.

[viklove]

Maybe in their mind, if they think they're very clever. But the judicial system is pretty clever in itself, I'm sure it would see right through the ruse.

[R0b0t1]

Can you really prove its a ruse? You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[kazagistar]

You don't actually, you just have to convince a jury. With motive, and this evidence, you are pretty dang likely.

Basically, jury nullification is a thing, and this is the same principle backward.

[R0b0t1]

I know, but there are cases where something similar to "I just felt betting on his good health" have gotten someone acquitted.

[mockery]

It's important to remember that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means exactly that: no "reasonable" person would doubt it. (The definition of reasonable is left to the jury.)

Some people seem to think "beyond a reasonable doubt" means the same as "beyond any shadow of a doubt" - but they are very different standards!

[michaelmrose]

You don't actually have to. You just have to convince 12 people that you did it. If this were so trivial to get away with people would you know actually be doing it.

[sukilot]

Getting caught betting $500K against someone dying is likely going t turn up a lot more evidence of motive or other illegal activity.

Anyway, in real life a hit costs about $50K.

[zelly]

It would have to use some type of "untraceable" cryptocurrency like Monero because of that way to expose the hitman. Using traceable money (e.g. dollars in bank accounts or Bitcoin), the police can just plainly see the destination of the funds from the prediction market's wallet (which, if decentralized, must be known or, if centralized, could be discovered through espionage).

[jhardy54]

> Assuming the prediction market isn't untraceable, would this be legal?

My question is whether it's actually illegal to take this bet, since it doesn't really prove that you're the hitman.

[zelly]

Sorry I missed that. If it were legal, I'd assume there'd be a law making it illegal within a few days.

[Enginerrrd]

The question is moot since if it wasn't, and you made such a market, it soon would be. Realistically, the FBI would find a way to get you for something even in the meantime.

[pvg]

It's one of the oldest ones around, I think predating 'dark web/net' as a term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market

[c3534l]

I don't know why, but it never quite hit me what the point of that thought experiment was until now. I heard about it in the context of predictions markets where people wanted to know the outcome of negative events and how it could encourage someone to take matters into their own hands. I hadn't thought of it as a way of actually back-door hiring a assassin without having to know who that assassin was.

[mycall]

aka dead drops

[xorcist]

There are likely easier ways to trigger the payment.

Hacked websites, bribed operators etc.

[tptacek]

Luring your victim to the part of Yellowstone that lies in Idaho seems like a much more legally plausible way to accomplish this.

[bezmenov]

It becomes really interesting once the other side of that bet can be crowdfunded.

Someone with half a million to squander already has the means to disperse of others. Whereas an enemy of the people may have 10,000 detractors, who while otherwise wouldn’t have the means, can pool together a seven figure bounty for $100 each.