I was honestly surprised to see this post, so I decided to look into the stance of blackmail/extortion by libertarians (which alligns with theymos' political beliefs).

It looks like the libertarian view on blackmail is that they accept this kind of practice. The article that I read explained that allowing blackmail would make immoral activities more expensive (if you cheat on your wife for example, then you might have to pay an extortion in order to avoid this information from becoming public). The article also mentioned that the normal course of business involves something very similar to blackmail on a regular basis -- an example that it gave was that when someone goes to the grocery store, that the customer will blackmail the store in saying that they will not give the store money for a loaf of bread unless the store gives the customer a loaf a bread, and conversely, the store will blackmail the customer in saying that they will not allow the customer to leave with the loaf of bread unless the customer pays for the bread.

I think the major difference in Lauda's case is that Lauda fabricated evidence (and/or utilized evidence that he knew was fabricated) in order to harm the reputation of defcon23. By proclaiming allegations that Lauda knew to be false, Lauda was actively deceiving others. I also know the libertarian view is to "let the markets work it out", however I believe the market has spoken, as multiple people have questioned the negative trust that Lauda originally left, and multiple people have excluded Lauda from their trust lists.

I don't think I agree with this viewpoint, as I believe that money gained as a result from blackmail/extortion (as is commonly defined) is stolen and does not belong to the receiver. I would argue that the moral response to becoming aware of illegal/unethical activity would be to report such activity.