Topic: [2014-05-07] Silk Road 2.0 Now Larger Than Silk Road Ever Was (Read 4749 times)

Sometimes they punish a few end-users, to send the message across. I remember last year, when the authorities imposed fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a few internet users, who had downloaded pirated movies using torrent. The aim was to spread fear, so that the majority will refrain from downloading such files.

It's pretty unusual for government to ever go after end-users. Johns aren't often prosecuted, nor druggos unless they're being assholes. Buyer won't be getting what he paid for at collection time, though, and probably not a refund either. (whatever happened to SR funds? Still just sitting around?)

Collusion is a word, not a typo.

Well... as far as I know, so far the FBI has not prosecuted any buyers. I believe that they are only after the sellers and the site admins. So... the buyers might be safe after all.

address space is in a magintude of earth * granes of sand * earth * granes of sand * earth *earth times granes of sand!

so no collision is not very likely.

The collusion issue with Opt2 multi-sig escrow you mention is very serious on a site which has a fair chance at being a honeypot, and it's especially dodgy given the number of accounts being "hacked." If the government is both escrow and either the seller or buyer, you're still completely screwed when they decide to harvest the project.

This would usually be in the realm of "outfield conspiracy theory," but I think it's definitely worth seriously considering for potential transactors on these kinds of sites, especially as a seller since you aren't particularly protected using either multi-sig method (I'd imagine most people use option 2, but Idunno how it works on those sites).

As far as I know, this is how multi-sig works:

Option 1:

1. Create a multisig address which requires signatures from both the buyer and seller.
2. The buyer sends funds to this address.
3. Seller ships the product.
4. When the product arrives, the buyer and the seller sign a transaction sending the funds from the multisig address to the seller.
5. If the order is cancelled amicably, the buyer and seller sign a transaction sending the funds from the multisig address to the buyer.

This doesn't require any 3rd party, but it does have several failure modes, e.g. extortion, negligence and so on.

Option 2:

1. Find a relatively trustworthy escrow/mediator.
2. Create a multisig address requiring 2 signatures out of the buyer, seller and mediator.
3. Buyer sends funds to this address.
4. Seller ships the product.
5. When the product arrives, buyer and seller sign a tx sending funds to seller.
6. If the product doesn't arrive, mediator verifies this fact, and buyer and mediator sign a tx sending funds to buyer.
7. If the product arrives but buyer refuses to pay, mediator verifies this fact, and seller and mediator sign a tx sending funds to seller.

This requires a 3rd party, but the trust requirement is limited. As long as buyer and seller cooperate the mediator doesn't do anything. A problem requires 2 out of 3 parties to defect, unlike traditional escrow where the escrow can ruin it himself.

(Thanks to Meni Rosenfeld of Bitcoin QT).

I've heard Multisig escrow in conversation and threads on here many times. What is it (besides a form of escrow obv.) and how does it work?

Yes. Driving has a purpose. I hope you don't need me to explain it to you. It is obvious.
The purpose of drinking is fun. The purpose of drunk driving is, you don't wanna spend money for a taxi or you don't like public transportation. That's just no good reason to allow it, when there is a high risk to it. Therefor it is forbidden. It is really simple.

I'm not arguing that.  I'll happily concede it for the purpose of this discussion.


Precisely.  So it is with laws against the possession and use of certain drugs.  Buried as it was in my questioning style, this was my point.


Nonsense.  This is central to the debate if we are justifying the law from the point of view of risk management rather than ethics.  How many people are killed by sober drivers each year?  To society, is the freedom to drive worth the increased mortality?


Irrelevant.

You drive worse, when you are drunk. That is a biological fact. You can't really argue about that.
When a cop catches you drunk driving, you can't just say: "But I am driving drunk, for 20 years and never had an accident". That is not the point of this law. The point is, that when you drive drunk, there is a higher possibility that you have an accident. When a lot of people drive drunk, there will be more accidents, than when they are not. It is risk management.  It also doesn't matter, that there are also car accidents with sober drivers.
Most people believe, that bad things are not happening to them, until they do happen to them.

How is driving drunk analogous to planting a bomb where driving sober is not?

Even when sober, it is possible to cause a fatal accident.  Indeed, road accidents are a relatively common way of being killed.  Could you clarify your position on the legality of driving sober?

To return to my main point:  What if I'm able to prove that I can drive sufficiently well while drunk?  Perhaps I could elect to pass my driving test while drunk.  It may be that, while drunk, I'm still safer on the road than many motorists.

lol.. SR 2.0 is still there. And it had been there for the past 6-7 months. Many people are saying that it is a FBI honeypot. But I disagree with that. Those vendors who were arrested, they just had their stupidity to blame.

What if everything that's happening to you is a hallucination.......

He has already entered in to a plea bargain with the Florida police guys... so no use in discussing it further here. He was a complete idiot, what else we could say about this incident?

the only thing he can tell is the addresses , witch don't say anything why?
you can give anybody's address!
build a site on the rule of cant do evil and this guy useless.

yes it is , they use multisig for escrow , so there is no way feds can do anything extra to find or disturb users.
the site it self does not have any extra power over its users.
its besed on CANT do evil.
instead of don't do evil.

There is some bad news. A citizen of the Netherlands, Cornelis Jan Slomp (known as SuperTrips in SR 2.0) is facing a 40-year jail term in the US. As part of his plea agreement with prosecutors, he is cooperating with law enforcement in exchange for a recommended 15-year prison sentence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-trafficker-pleads-guilty-in-chicago-to-distributing-drugs-over-underground-silk-road-website-20140508,0,5832398.story

Keep us informed.

We can prevent them from endangering others. Isn't it better to prevent a murder than punishing the murderer?
I think, that's the whole Point of making drugs illegal. Sure, it isn't bad, if someone takes drugs once(in most cases), but if someone takes drugs regularly over a Long time, it is pretty likely that he will harm others on one way or another. The freedom of a Person today, shouldn't affect the safety and health of others tomorrow(same goes for laws to protect the envirement)
Like I said at the beginning, I am all for some more legalization of drugs, but I don't want laws that say "Sure, take whatever you want, we don't care as Long as you don't harm others", that's not better than saying "Sure, you can buy weapons of mass destruction, but don't harm others"