Topic: Some Thoughts on Silk Road - page 2. (Read 1635 times)

Lol, I've made three posts in like four years. But I posted the text here

That is an assumption that I wouldn't be so quick to make. Historically, it is known that the US and NSA had backdoors in various past encryption algorithms meaning that while they were portrayed to be secure they were in fact far from it. For modern algorithms we don't know for a fact that the NSA doesn't have various backdoors that they engineered in the first place (after all they hire quite a few top mathematics/cryptographers every few years) and they would be incredibly frustrated if they couldn't break modern encryption. In all likelihood, I'd think they some encryption has already been broken - they just don't want to say anything and instead use it to gather data.

I haven't heard of that site, but I am guessing it is like megaupload was.  Sure a lot of pirates used it, but also a lot of legit people like musicians, who would earn some income form letting people download their music from there.  Unfortunately everyone lost.  I hope this does not become the case with open bazar.


"Yeah, i don't think he gets what the concept of decentralized means. Skype runs on servers somewhere"

I said LIKE skype, NOT skype itself.  I think its hilarious that you don't know how to read.

Skype is monitored, the only way to stay somewhat protected is to use a proxy, and be behind a VPN. IRC is the best form of communication.

Yeah, i don't think he gets what the concept of decentralized means. Skype runs on servers somewhere, which means it's centralized as hell.
They are never going to give a fuck about what you say over there tho, unless you are a serious criminal.
I think Tox was a project aiming at being some sort of decentralized anonymous Skype.

Op, you should actually post the content of the article in the op because this just seems like blogspam to me.


Agreed. It's hilarious that he thinks skype it decentralised, epsecially because it is easily monitored and the NSA already have access to Skype chats. Pretty much the only thing they can't get their hands on are encrypted messages. I'm all for more decentralized systems in both instant messaging and markets and hope they become widespread soon as they're massively needed with the recent darknet takedowns and all the NSA spying revelations.

Mt.gox incident will remain a benchmark for the new bitcoin users in terms of using a bitcoin exchange service. as Silk Road will remain a benchmark for the users in terms Darknet.

Make something of decentralized is nearly impossible, because the people are used to be 'controlled' and use something of centralized. It will be really shocking for them to see/use something of decentralized (this is what I think).


My thought about silkroad is : the marketplace was good but the items were illegal and this is the unique problem but in a point of view of 'function' it is really working.

you mean something like open bazar, but they clearly stated that their intent isn't to run a silk road 2.0, but we know that criminals will use it too, so i wonder how they can mantain their promise...

Of course it is.
It belongs to Microsoft, doesn't it?

Also, what about using the IRC?

Skype is easily monitored. It is centralized.

I think the lesson learned by silk road is that having a large center of business is a bad thing.  It makes it vulnerable to shut down.  So I imagine that anyone doing something illegal would turn to non-centralized communication, maybe something like skype to communicate.  So certain black market dealers would become known for their specialty and if one of them got caught then the rest would still be out there dealing.

I have no experience with this stuff so I could be way off base here.

Well, some aspects of this story are really true, such as "Silk Road will never go away". As long as Bitcoin/Altcoins exist, things can be purchased relatively anonymously and it let's criminals get hold of "money" easier.

http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2015/05/thoughts-on-ross.html

Thoughts on Ross

From time to time, I enjoy investing an afternoon considering politics and the state of affairs here in the United States. Our country is the first hyperpower forcing all other nations to consider us in whatever policy happens to be the day's grock. This reality is divorced from ethical or moral metrics and the war on drugs is no different.

For whatever reason (religious, practical, dystopian, etc), policymakers in the United States have continuously decided to label a behavior or substance as dangerous to the social fabric™ of our society. Prohibition is the standard example and its spectacular failure is somehow forgotten. We saw and acknowledge the rise of the modern mafia. We saw the decentralized nature of resistance through bootleggers (some say one who's kid become president) and the FBI form to stop the bootleggers empowering J. Edgar Hoover to terrorize two generations of Americans via illegal spying and blackmail (including Martin Luther King). Yet why have no lessons been learned?

The war of drugs is a leviathan that has imprisoned millions of Americans (vastly disportionate for minorities), formed massive bureaucracies such as the DEA and their state equivalents, and like Hoover's FBI slowly transformed society to both militarize the police and make their actions somehow ok. Where in this process have we asked what the goal exactly is? Why are we as a country destroying families, imprisoning millions and treating addicts as hardened criminals? Why have we created an industry that robs us of our constitutional rights and turns our police force into something resembling the Stasi?         

I honestly don't have a good answer. There is perhaps an historical context that could be explored and used to synthetically explain why we are somehow comfortable as a nation using a plato like ideal social fabric™ to justify incarcerating millions for non-violent crimes. Yet this leaves a putrid taste in my mouth.

The United States drug policy is simply put immoral to the core. If drug use results in damage to one's relationships, then hold people accountable for their actions. But instead we say that Heroin somehow is more damaging than alcohol? Marijuana is a gateway to personal destruction (except for when our presidents smoke it [1][2])? I guess Colorado is doomed then .

Now enter Ross Ulbricht the dread pirate roberts. He isn't a very nice person. No one running a drug cartel really is a nice person. But he isn't a Zetas Cartel kingpin proudly displaying the heads of his enemies. He is a programmer who saw an opportunity to use emerging technology to enrich himself without regard to the current egregious law. He believed that he could stay hidden thanks to the nature of Tor and Bitcoin. He also believed that a decentralized marketplace could reduce the violence associated with the drug trade (which is fair considering that violence comes from the prohibition not the other way around).

And the fruits of his labors were a modest marketplace that was the safest and lowest violence drug exchange in the world. It also allowed suppliers to directly sell to consumers cutting out the middleman who usually end up being pretty evil. Compared to the Golden Triangle, a relatively small amount of funds changed hands and consumers got their substances. The vast majority didn't go crazy and grab chainsaws for some Tony Montana action. The vast majority didn't destroy their families and social networks. The vast majority are still living their lives amongst us going to work, church or vacations. Somehow the social fabric™ the government must protect hasn't been torn.

Yet Ross now gets to spend the rest of his life in prison as a living symbol of the war on drugs. He has effectively become its Nelson Mandela. The Silk Road won't go away. Those who are knowledgeable about cryptography and the nature of the internet will cite technology like Openbazaar and other such systems as the bittorrent moment of online drug trade. Ross's imprisonment will send no message contrary to what the prosecutor suggests, it just increases the stakes for anonymity and the amount of potential profit from the trade.

The countermeasures will inevitably be a war on cryptography (I should trademark that one) and internet anonymity. To protect the social fabric™, the United States must rob us of our privacy and autonomy. We must accept that all packets need to be inspected. Secrets are illegal. And no doubt massive government budgets must be increased. Think of your children!

I'm really done with this madness. We supposedly have a republic and have the right to change things. At this moment, I'd like to divide the bitcoin space into two groups. Those that complain about the injustice of Ross's sentence and those that do something about it. I'm going to do something about it. My company is going to build some great tools to preserve personal privacy (that thing we have a constitutional right to) and make sure they are open source and well distributed.

I'm also going to ask everyone in this space to be in the second bucket. Do something about this injustice. Think about the software you could write. Organize meetups and spread the word. We didn't like our money or the banks so we made new money. Is in inconceivable that we can make a new society with a social fabric that's actually worth protecting?

Charles