Topic: While silk road is closed, what improvements would you suggest? (Read 3126 times)
I'd like to suggest a filter by country. e.g. If your in the UK, filter to see only sellers from the UK.
Hello all.
Seeing as how the silk road is closed to new members Im selling a working login to the website. No account history created yet. The silk road does work.
http://bayimg.com/kAiNnaaDI
PM me.
Send funds here 1KrTRwBBjXGeP8r5UXC2kpVgTVN6BMEJo5
Username: 5415212
Password: XXXXXXXX
3 BTC
Seeing as how the silk road is closed to new members Im selling a working login to the website. No account history created yet. The silk road does work.
http://bayimg.com/kAiNnaaDI
PM me.
Send funds here 1KrTRwBBjXGeP8r5UXC2kpVgTVN6BMEJo5
Username: 5415212
Password: XXXXXXXX
3 BTC
I just want them to stay on Bitcoin market and be successful. Hopefully it will bring more drug traders.
First of all, I consider them early warning system. You will know something is wrong if governments will manage to take the down. Second, if you think governments are scared of some silly drug market more than of losing control over whole money system, you are really, REALLY NAIVE.
No, if they will try to destroy Bitcoin, it won't be because of Silk Road. They may use it as an excuse, but they will find another if they have to. And I do hope they will try fight it! Really, BRING IT ON. It will be the final test how independent Bitcoin is. And even if they succeed I believe something better will emerge. Just see how fighting with file sharing worked out for them.
First of all, I consider them early warning system. You will know something is wrong if governments will manage to take the down. Second, if you think governments are scared of some silly drug market more than of losing control over whole money system, you are really, REALLY NAIVE.
No, if they will try to destroy Bitcoin, it won't be because of Silk Road. They may use it as an excuse, but they will find another if they have to. And I do hope they will try fight it! Really, BRING IT ON. It will be the final test how independent Bitcoin is. And even if they succeed I believe something better will emerge. Just see how fighting with file sharing worked out for them.
@bullox: Fair critique, and certainly SR's maiden trip through the media certainly left the impression with lots of people that bitcoin was simply synonymous with drugs. And perhaps SR, as it was known, may need to quietly wind down or transition into something else.
But I have to ask the following two questions:
1. Isn't there an inherent value to an electronic currency to have a large population of users who don't have an incentive to manipulate the currency or otherwise introduce fraud into the system? Miners have an incentive to promote the currency, in the hope of running up the exchange value of the coins they mine at an arbitrage to the actual cost (50 BTC - electricity - user time - computer expenses...) Large holders of the e-currency have an incentive to hype the currency, also to boost the value of their holdings. Both groups potentially have an incentive to defraud the system to gain a larger exchange value for their holdings. But large groups of people only using the currency for "normal" transactions serve to introduce stability to the economy as a whole. How is this different from tourists flying to Amsterdam, exchanging cash into euros, spending 3 straight days higher than a kite in every coffeeshop in town, and then exchanging those euros back into their home currency before the flight home?
2. Wouldn't generating, and informally peer-reviewing, ideas to improve SR also serve to improve the concept of any anonymous marketplace to follow after SR? Demand for illegal drugs just happens to be one of the most commonly pursued "anonymous" transactions, and it's hard enough to do in the non-virtual world that a critical mass of people are eager to try an online experiment to see if it works. Rather than discourage improving upon this first effort, wouldn't it be better for the community to rapidly evolve the concept of a truly anonymous online marketplace so that it doesn't just have to encompass drugs?
But I have to ask the following two questions:
1. Isn't there an inherent value to an electronic currency to have a large population of users who don't have an incentive to manipulate the currency or otherwise introduce fraud into the system? Miners have an incentive to promote the currency, in the hope of running up the exchange value of the coins they mine at an arbitrage to the actual cost (50 BTC - electricity - user time - computer expenses...) Large holders of the e-currency have an incentive to hype the currency, also to boost the value of their holdings. Both groups potentially have an incentive to defraud the system to gain a larger exchange value for their holdings. But large groups of people only using the currency for "normal" transactions serve to introduce stability to the economy as a whole. How is this different from tourists flying to Amsterdam, exchanging cash into euros, spending 3 straight days higher than a kite in every coffeeshop in town, and then exchanging those euros back into their home currency before the flight home?
2. Wouldn't generating, and informally peer-reviewing, ideas to improve SR also serve to improve the concept of any anonymous marketplace to follow after SR? Demand for illegal drugs just happens to be one of the most commonly pursued "anonymous" transactions, and it's hard enough to do in the non-virtual world that a critical mass of people are eager to try an online experiment to see if it works. Rather than discourage improving upon this first effort, wouldn't it be better for the community to rapidly evolve the concept of a truly anonymous online marketplace so that it doesn't just have to encompass drugs?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that as an anonymous currency, this is the ideal method of payment for such goods. They probably should (and will) stick around. My issue is that every highly publicized "illegal" (and I use this term only in the definition of the law, not the merit) merchant out there sets us back 100 steps for every step the legitimate merchants take forward. Public Relations is the name of the game right now to continue bitcoins extended future.
As long as there is forward momentum, all is well, but if we are taking more steps back then forward....
@bullox: Fair critique, and certainly SR's maiden trip through the media certainly left the impression with lots of people that bitcoin was simply synonymous with drugs. And perhaps SR, as it was known, may need to quietly wind down or transition into something else.
But I have to ask the following two questions:
1. Isn't there an inherent value to an electronic currency to have a large population of users who don't have an incentive to manipulate the currency or otherwise introduce fraud into the system? Miners have an incentive to promote the currency, in the hope of running up the exchange value of the coins they mine at an arbitrage to the actual cost (50 BTC - electricity - user time - computer expenses...) Large holders of the e-currency have an incentive to hype the currency, also to boost the value of their holdings. Both groups potentially have an incentive to defraud the system to gain a larger exchange value for their holdings. But large groups of people only using the currency for "normal" transactions serve to introduce stability to the economy as a whole. How is this different from tourists flying to Amsterdam, exchanging cash into euros, spending 3 straight days higher than a kite in every coffeeshop in town, and then exchanging those euros back into their home currency before the flight home?
2. Wouldn't generating, and informally peer-reviewing, ideas to improve SR also serve to improve the concept of any anonymous marketplace to follow after SR? Demand for illegal drugs just happens to be one of the most commonly pursued "anonymous" transactions, and it's hard enough to do in the non-virtual world that a critical mass of people are eager to try an online experiment to see if it works. Rather than discourage improving upon this first effort, wouldn't it be better for the community to rapidly evolve the concept of a truly anonymous online marketplace so that it doesn't just have to encompass drugs?
But I have to ask the following two questions:
1. Isn't there an inherent value to an electronic currency to have a large population of users who don't have an incentive to manipulate the currency or otherwise introduce fraud into the system? Miners have an incentive to promote the currency, in the hope of running up the exchange value of the coins they mine at an arbitrage to the actual cost (50 BTC - electricity - user time - computer expenses...) Large holders of the e-currency have an incentive to hype the currency, also to boost the value of their holdings. Both groups potentially have an incentive to defraud the system to gain a larger exchange value for their holdings. But large groups of people only using the currency for "normal" transactions serve to introduce stability to the economy as a whole. How is this different from tourists flying to Amsterdam, exchanging cash into euros, spending 3 straight days higher than a kite in every coffeeshop in town, and then exchanging those euros back into their home currency before the flight home?
2. Wouldn't generating, and informally peer-reviewing, ideas to improve SR also serve to improve the concept of any anonymous marketplace to follow after SR? Demand for illegal drugs just happens to be one of the most commonly pursued "anonymous" transactions, and it's hard enough to do in the non-virtual world that a critical mass of people are eager to try an online experiment to see if it works. Rather than discourage improving upon this first effort, wouldn't it be better for the community to rapidly evolve the concept of a truly anonymous online marketplace so that it doesn't just have to encompass drugs?
I'd like to thank it for its service in injecting capital into the BTC economy, and for being a significant contributer to the growth of times past.
That being said, I'd also like them to quietly close shop and not come back. I feel that BTC has hit critical mass enough to sustain itself without it's trade, and the battles to be fought in the roads ahead are about legitimacy of BTC. Silk road undermines that by being a tremendous skeleton in the closet.
That being said, I'd also like them to quietly close shop and not come back. I feel that BTC has hit critical mass enough to sustain itself without it's trade, and the battles to be fought in the roads ahead are about legitimacy of BTC. Silk road undermines that by being a tremendous skeleton in the closet.
By now, we've all heard that Silk Road has temporarily closed to new members, and we've all read the Gawker story and all the chatter afterwards.
What changes would you suggest while the site is down for improvements anyway? We've all seen what features or weaknesses will be attacked by the media, so why not work on fixing those weaknesses now?
I have nothing to do with the site (got a peek but didn't get an account in time), but it looks like "Silk Road" is pretty active on here, so I'm guessing our input will be heard.
So, how would you improve The Silk Road next time?
What changes would you suggest while the site is down for improvements anyway? We've all seen what features or weaknesses will be attacked by the media, so why not work on fixing those weaknesses now?
I have nothing to do with the site (got a peek but didn't get an account in time), but it looks like "Silk Road" is pretty active on here, so I'm guessing our input will be heard.
So, how would you improve The Silk Road next time?
Jump to: