dogecoindark.net
already has darknet = untraceable ip crypto.
;]
already has darknet = untraceable ip crypto.
;]
I don't believe anything is untraceable for the NSA.
Topic: Dear Would Be Drug Marketplace Operators (Read 3926 times)
I don't believe anything is untraceable for the NSA.
I don't think using multisig addresses for openbazaar donations is going to help anything. Anyone that facaliates the sale of illegal drugs (or any other illegal good for that matter) is risking apprehension by law enforcement as well as a lengthy jail/prison sentence
OpenBazaar is a protocol, not a one stop shop for illegal drugs. Thus, governments probably can't stop development on it any moreso than they could on BitTorrent. If anything, a crackdown on the software would lead more people to using it and developing for it, e.g. PopcornTime.
Exactly, I believe federal agencies are aware of that and that's why they don't just ban everything immediately. They're slowly taking their time as not to cause too much disruption(an outright ban on some services would lead to even more people doing things they don't want). All in all, their take your time approach is better than the outright ban approach and I think all bitcoiners would agree.
I don't think using multisig addresses for openbazaar donations is going to help anything. Anyone that facaliates the sale of illegal drugs (or any other illegal good for that matter) is risking apprehension by law enforcement as well as a lengthy jail/prison sentence
OpenBazaar is a protocol, not a one stop shop for illegal drugs. Thus, governments probably can't stop development on it any moreso than they could on BitTorrent. If anything, a crackdown on the software would lead more people to using it and developing for it, e.g. PopcornTime.
It isn't actually the job of law enforcement to earn certain amounts of revenue, it is their job to enforce the law that the legislature has enacted.
Agreed, but that is not where their priorities lie.
Also if they were going to seize the assets of open bazaar then they could simply seize the keys from two of the four devs (assuming they are using a 2 of 4 multi sig address) to sign/push a TX out of their address
Ok, I see where the confusion is. We are both talking about the developers using multisig for their measly 18 BTC to fund development and the future dealers using multisig BTC as part of the open bazaar protocol in order to protect their assets from either the feds stealing it or the developers stealing it.
Are you suggesting you believe the feds will go after developers for creating a non-profit agnostic marketplace? If so why haven't they gone after developers who create torrent software and protocols in a non-profit and voluntary method yet?
I don't think using multisig addresses for openbazaar donations is going to help anything. Anyone that facaliates the sale of illegal drugs (or any other illegal good for that matter) is risking apprehension by law enforcement as well as a lengthy jail/prison sentence
Even if you ignore the incentivization from asset forfeiture, there are real limits to how an organization can fund its operations without sufficient funding. Right now a large amount of funding is done through fines and theft(asset forfeiture). If one uses mutisig addresses than these apprehensions will result in less theft occurring therefore starving the state of these needed funds.
Where will law enforcement make up this loss in revenue?
Also if they were going to seize the assets of open bazaar then they could simply seize the keys from two of the four devs (assuming they are using a 2 of 4 multi sig address) to sign/push a TX out of their address
I don't think using multisig addresses for openbazaar donations is going to help anything. Anyone that facaliates the sale of illegal drugs (or any other illegal good for that matter) is risking apprehension by law enforcement as well as a lengthy jail/prison sentence
Even if you ignore the incentivization from asset forfeiture, there are real limits to how an organization can fund its operations without sufficient funding. Right now a large amount of funding is done through fines and theft(asset forfeiture). If one uses mutisig addresses than these apprehensions will result in less theft occurring therefore starving the state of these needed funds.
Where will law enforcement make up this loss in revenue?
The cult of personality which has existed around SR "leaders" may have inspired trust, but it's been misplaced trust. Hackings and law enforcement take-downs have happened under the watch of these trusted leaders.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly.
Agreed, mutisig and auditing is the right solution:
https://blog.openbazaar.org/migration-of-our-project-funds-to-a-multisig-address/
I noticed that the Europol statement specifically referred to investigating the technology. I don't think it's safe to assume that human error alone is responsible for every bust. Yes, good old fashion police work has played a huge part in the very public busts to date, but it would be extremely unwise to assume that access to awesome technological resources hasn't also given investigators far more information than has been made public.
I'd be inclined to take Europol at their word about going after users - not because they care about people buying small amounts of drugs but because they want to create the impression that involvement in the dark markets is unsafe whether you're an operator, a vendor or a buyer. For the most part, non-vendor buyers have felt relatively safe up until now - so safe that they're posting on clearnet trying to track down contact details for known SR vendors. Prosecution of buyers will disrupt that feeling of safety.
Well one thing that I think is interesting is the ratio of sites they took down to the number of people they arrested. It appears that they took down ~400 sites while they were only able to arrest ~15 people. I would highly doubt that those 15 people were running 400 sites as this would not be very efficient. I would speculate they were able to find the hosting of the sites easily (probably via traffic analysis) but would have more problems locating the people who are actually running the sites).I'd be inclined to take Europol at their word about going after users - not because they care about people buying small amounts of drugs but because they want to create the impression that involvement in the dark markets is unsafe whether you're an operator, a vendor or a buyer. For the most part, non-vendor buyers have felt relatively safe up until now - so safe that they're posting on clearnet trying to track down contact details for known SR vendors. Prosecution of buyers will disrupt that feeling of safety.
You would however have problems trusting that a dark market site is not now running as a honeypot as law enforcement could potentially take over the site and allow it to continue to run to see who buys/sells on it
I noticed that the Europol statement specifically referred to investigating the technology. I don't think it's safe to assume that human error alone is responsible for every bust. Yes, good old fashion police work has played a huge part in the very public busts to date, but it would be extremely unwise to assume that access to awesome technological resources hasn't also given investigators far more information than has been made public.
I'd be inclined to take Europol at their word about going after users - not because they care about people buying small amounts of drugs but because they want to create the impression that involvement in the dark markets is unsafe whether you're an operator, a vendor or a buyer. For the most part, non-vendor buyers have felt relatively safe up until now - so safe that they're posting on clearnet trying to track down contact details for known SR vendors. Prosecution of buyers will disrupt that feeling of safety.
I'd be inclined to take Europol at their word about going after users - not because they care about people buying small amounts of drugs but because they want to create the impression that involvement in the dark markets is unsafe whether you're an operator, a vendor or a buyer. For the most part, non-vendor buyers have felt relatively safe up until now - so safe that they're posting on clearnet trying to track down contact details for known SR vendors. Prosecution of buyers will disrupt that feeling of safety.
I think the reason why "defcon" was adopting the role of a "leader" was to inspire trust in his marketplace, especially after it has been hacked as many times as it was hacked. If you are not active in the community then people will not trust you as much
The cult of personality which has existed around SR "leaders" may have inspired trust, but it's been misplaced trust. Hackings and law enforcement take-downs have happened under the watch of these trusted leaders.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly. That advice is very quickly forgotten as people once again get wrapped up in the idea that they're part of some heroic movement for change and that the leadership is going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to protect them. The reality never matches the rhetoric, though.
Power and money are heady intoxicants, but there's a danger in believing your own publicity. When you start believing your own PR, you put others at risk.
Users need to stop buying into the idea of SR as a movement or community. They need to view it as a commercial enterprise and stop believing that the people at the top are martyrs who'll protect those beneath them. They need to stop wanting to like and be close to whoever is at the top. Buying into the mythology creates vulnerability on both the part of the leadership and the users and leads to stupid mistakes.
The cult of personality which has existed around SR "leaders" may have inspired trust, but it's been misplaced trust. Hackings and law enforcement take-downs have happened under the watch of these trusted leaders.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly.
Agreed, mutisig and auditing is the right solution:
https://blog.openbazaar.org/migration-of-our-project-funds-to-a-multisig-address/
I think the reason why "defcon" was adopting the role of a "leader" was to inspire trust in his marketplace, especially after it has been hacked as many times as it was hacked. If you are not active in the community then people will not trust you as much
The cult of personality which has existed around SR "leaders" may have inspired trust, but it's been misplaced trust. Hackings and law enforcement take-downs have happened under the watch of these trusted leaders.
Whenever the shit hits the fan, there's always a big "trust no-one" push and the emerging leaders always tell the community to assume everyone is law enforcement and act accordingly. That advice is very quickly forgotten as people once again get wrapped up in the idea that they're part of some heroic movement for change and that the leadership is going to great lengths and making great sacrifices to protect them. The reality never matches the rhetoric, though.
Power and money are heady intoxicants, but there's a danger in believing your own publicity. When you start believing your own PR, you put others at risk.
Users need to stop buying into the idea of SR as a movement or community. They need to view it as a commercial enterprise and stop believing that the people at the top are martyrs who'll protect those beneath them. They need to stop wanting to like and be close to whoever is at the top. Buying into the mythology creates vulnerability on both the part of the leadership and the users and leads to stupid mistakes.
You see, the U.S. govt. is very resourceful and can (for now) print just about any money it needs for any task.
They can print infinite money, but they can not print infinite human resources.Open drug sale is too large a political issue for them to put up only half efforts.
That's actually what makes open drug sales such a perfect strategy. Lure them into a fight they can neither resist nor win. (where have I heard that strategy before?)The reason they can't win is because the USG is operating with a goodwill account that's overdrawn.
Like an overdrawn checking account, every further attempt to withdraw from the account just makes the balance more negative due to overdraft fees.
Each time they act, their pool of talented individuals willing to accept their money shrinks a little bit. At the same time, more people decide to apply their talents toward thwarting them.
How many more people are going to spend some time auditing or hardening Tor hidden services today that would have not done so absent this announcement?
They think that they can scare people into submission, because only the types of people who'd make that kind of error would be in that job in the first place. Of course it will backfire on them.
We should be thanking them for providing the incentive to produce the kinds of technology improvements that will result from their actions, to their own detriment.
Yeah, but can we get weed there yet?
Given that many of the darkmarkets have been shutdown recently, I would avoid buying drugs on any of the remaining ones for some time. Use a local drug dealer instead.
Openbazaar beta 3 about to be released. I expect to start seriously using it in Jan 2015.
Yup, same thing I noticed, good point.
Crazy how fast this cat and mouse game happens...always the good vs. bad, one playing catchup!
Lets see them try and shutdown openbazaar where there is no site operator, no server, and no domain to shutdown.
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox In fact the most useful piece of advice which would be marketplace operators should follow is to check their ego and be as invisible and behind the scenes as possible. Actively participating in "the community", and especially adopting the role of "visionary leader" is just plain stupid. It's an illegal business first and foremost. Leave the ideological bullshit to the users instead of courting their adoration.
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox In fact the most useful piece of advice which would be marketplace operators should follow is to check their ego and be as invisible and behind the scenes as possible. Actively participating in "the community", and especially adopting the role of "visionary leader" is just plain stupid. It's an illegal business first and foremost. Leave the ideological bullshit to the users instead of courting their adoration.
Actually they caught this guy by becoming apart of the site's support staff, so it had nothing to do with computers or anything it was really old fashion cop work. Go undercover and becoming one of them.
Social engineering at it's best.
While putting on my tinfoil hat, I would speculate that SR2 was created by law enforcement as a way to entrap people running the site and law enforcement would have made up a good portion of the support staff
It has been reported that this Defcon is not the first Defcon. It is the fifth one. So, those who actually created and launched the site on November 6, 2013 are probably not caught as of yet.
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox 
Actually they caught this guy by becoming apart of the site's support staff, so it had nothing to do with computers or anything it was really old fashion cop work. Go undercover and becoming one of them.
Social engineering at it's best.
While putting on my tinfoil hat, I would speculate that SR2 was created by law enforcement as a way to entrap people running the site and law enforcement would have made up a good portion of the support staff
It has been reported that this Defcon is not the first Defcon. It is the fifth one. So, those who actually created and launched the site on November 6, 2013 are probably not caught as of yet.
Source: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/silk-road-2-0-users-defcon-5-as-related-arrests-continue-around-world/
Check the last sentence of the article...
Quote
The fall of Silk Road 2.0 was expected: This is Defcon 5, not Defcon 1.
Read the above wiki. "defcon" is a measure of "preparedness" of the military with 5 being the least prepared and 1 being the most prepared
Jump to: