Topic: Outdated announcement (Read 348 times)

There are better currencies to protect your identity now, BTC was the main currency of the dark web for a long time because of it's identity obfuscation and it is still being used.
BTC has multiple usage purposes, but the reason for its quick expansion is surely because of that, or do you know a bigger market that uses BTC?
(Aside from the trade market, of course.)

There is no system you can "trust" in the dark web market.
If there is a buyer protection, you have to trust an anonymous person in the dark web.
"Trustworthy" escrow services can’t help you, even if they use cryptocurrencies and claim to be decentralized, because in reality they are not.

It is entirely alright if you invested in them, but centralized solutions like that are not any better than PayPal, which also accepts crypto.

You do not seem to know this, but ICOs are like crowdfundings, you get money to realize the set goals and purposes.

Also all they did was to simply publish their first article.

Neither did you disproof any of my (or their) statements, instead just recited further arguments.

It seems, to me, that your arguing has an ulterior motive.

Please, go ahead and show me one trustworthy and working solution that does not need your personal data, rather than telling me to (re)search for it, if you are so convinced by it.

If you are so convinced by existing systems that work so well, why do you even bother arguing around here?

In fact I do very well understand what their aim is. Its just nonesense how they do it.


Escrow systems work for a reason and they protect the anonymity on trading platforms. How else would this work untill this day.Using them is no danger to anonymity and they exist because people need to gather evidence to make a decision.


Ofc there are escrow systems that work like PayPal while protecting the anonymity in the deepweb. Just research a bit...


Were talking about the darkweb. You can be sure, there will be a ton of new scammers once this SavAct-System is established.


This argument is idiotic. I am not the one who claims a lot of nonesense. SavAct are the ones who have to provide data. Just claiming stuff and calling it facts is unbelievably negligent and unprofessional.


The tokenowners are not "anyone". SavAct is withholding a large amount of the tokens. And therefore a large amount of invalidated coins go back to them. How can you not see the problem here?

As you have already described, only sellerscams were without SavAct possible. With Savact both seller and buyerscams are possbile, without any kind of control. This system is therefore not better than that we use right now, its much worse.


Because BTC was the first system that ensured the decentralization of transactions, which are not vulnerable to hacker attacks. Anonymity is still kind of a big problem with those currencies. Just read some news.

SavAct acts like they are the first that came up with a brilliant solution. While in fact their solution is more dangerous to trading than ever before. Its not sophisticated and unresonably risky. Either as a buyer or a seller, I would not use their system, because its more vulnerable to scams than the already established systems. More ridiculous is the fact, that SavAct claims that you need to give up your anonymity in the darkweb when using a crypto escrow system, which shows that they did not even research properly.

It seems to me that you dont understand the system, at all The way I see it, is that they are implementing this "form of buyer protection" mainly for the dark web and illegal stuff. So no escrow usage possible. Personally I want to stay anonymous in the dark web and dont want to justify myself in front of a trustee or whatever when, for example, my gun parts did not arrive. Tell me one system that is trying to protect both sides and still preserves anonymity of both sides. Who would go through the struggle in making, lets say 5 adresses, buys stuff from a seller waits till they arrive and then invalidates all transactions just to get nothing out of it since the funds are not going back to him? You are describing a person with real issues. And dont talk about some competition scheme when you cannot provide any data yourself.

"No, you cannot. If I buy something using PayPal and dont get the goods, PayPal does not run off with my money. SavAct does though. And where does the money go to? For a part to SavAct itself."

As explained before you are not anonymous anymore if you use PayPal. And the money goes to the token owners which could be anyone, I dont see the problem there.

"If someone buys goods and does not get them, they end up with no money and no goods. How is that result minimizing risks, if nothing changed."

Ill try to explain it in a simple manner:

In case the seller scams:
Without SavAct:
Buyer = Disadvantage because loses funds and does not receive goods
Seller = Advantage because keeps funds and goods

With SavAct:
Buyer = Disadvantage because unable to keep funds and does not receive goods
Seller = Neutral because gains nothing.

In case the buyer scams:
Without SavAct:
Buyer = Impossible, cannot scam.
Seller = Not affected by scam.

With SavAct:
Buyer = Neutral, loses funds but keeps the goods.
Seller = Disadvantage, loses both funds and the goods.

In the System of SavAct they erase one "advantage" and therefore make the system more balanced.

Does that make sense to you?
Also i still dont understand why people keep comparing a stand-alone anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency with other centralized or non crypto systems. Why did the BTC become so big and widespread in the dark and deep web? Because you can use paypal or other escrow systems with it? Nope, think again.

yet no supportive data was presented and your argument does not mean that the buyer will not get scammed. Why bother if other escrow systems can be used that at least try to protect the seller and the buyer. Your system certainly does not protect the seller.


This is not true. Like a said there are systems that try to protect both sides, while yours makes the seller totally vulnerable to scams.


Have you thought about byuers scams that would not use the same address twice?


Sure it can and it probably will happen...


No, you cannot. If I buy something using PayPal and dont get the goods, PayPal does not run off with my money. SavAct does though. And where does the money go to? For a part to SavAct itself.


Besides the "sellers would increase their sales" argument, which has zero supportive data, the "minimizing the buyers' risk" argument is false too. If someone buys goods and does not get them, they end up with no money and no goods. How is that result minimizing risks, if nothing changed.

Then our system works even better than those trustee solutions. Since with our system the buyer will not get his funds back if he attempts to scam the seller.


There are no buyer focused payment methods in the current anonymous cryptomarket, they are all seller focused. You can increase trust with SavAct as much as you can increase it with other anonymous cryptocurrencies. It is also not a freebie for buyers, because the buyers are unable to keep their funds. I want to mention here that the current anonymous cryptomarkets are freebies for sellers, as they get to keep funds and goods in case of a scam.

That just states an opinion with no supporting data. In reality, PayPal (and eBay and Amazon and...) are all buyer-focused and screw the seller by default.

I don't see how another buyer-focused payment system will help sellers who can already "increase trust" through standard methods (reviews and everything else you suggest). It's basically a freebie for buyers, with anonymity thrown in so the sellers can't even blacklist scammers.

About Scenario 1: Please read our FAQ: 8. "What if the buyer invalidates a transaction without any reason?" https://savact.com/menu/faq/

About Scenario 2: A serious seller should, of course, always check if he is about to sell all his goods to a single house address.
So Scenario 2 cannot happen using that argument. If the competitor would try to do it anyway, he would run into a huge risk that all his funds will be lost and neither receive any goods, because the seller caught up to his scheme.
You could compare it to PayPal. Using PayPal, the buyer is almost always in the right if you buy something in Asia from Western countries. Even so, sellers have no problem offering PayPal as a payment method.

The sellers would increase their sales by minimizing the buyers' risk.
Please remember, this is a system for anonymous payments. Trustees target another market.

We would appreciate if you could also have a look at our applications for binding votings.

That's horribly flawed. It ONLY protects the buyer, not the seller. If the scammer is a buyer, it fails dismally.

Scenario 1: Buyer buys, gets goods, complains about seller. Seller loses goods and money, buyer loses money but keeps goods (i.e. pays).

Scenario 2: Competitor buys 10,000 goods through multiple addresses, complains about seller on all of them. Seller goes out of business (loses goods and money), buyer resells goods on eBay to recoup payment.

And many, many more. In no circumstances is the seller protected, except where they can switch off the buyer's access to whatever it is they're selling.

While buyer protection is important, so is seller protection. That's why third-party systems work.

Why would any vendor sign up to a system that virtually guarantees they'll get screwed without recourse?