why in the world would anyone risk selling / buying on these markets right now. Its like robbing a stapler from a police department. Your asking for trouble
if you're buying drugs in small quantities, i'd think that the feds aren't all that interested in spending the money to lock you down.. plus it's safer than buying on the streets. it's quite risky to sell though. I do not advocate for breaking the law however I would say that the risk of selling is actually much less then it is for selling on the streets as it is more difficult to get caught selling as having a undercover officer buy from you would not expose your identity (at least I don't think it would) |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854105.0;allHe already opened a scam accusation on you. IMO you opening one on him is kind of pointless, especially with the level of detail you have provided. I think it would probably be best to try to work something out and/or discuss your differences on his scam accusation thread
|
|
|
|
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust. Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics. Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games) 49 posts JR member Hmmmm shell account perhaps? Your account (just like every other account) at one point only had 49 posts, and this is not evidence that I am just a "shell". Unless you can dispute any of the facts/arguments that I have presented with facts then the fact that you think I am a "shell" does not matter. You need to remember not to believe what someone says simply because of their rank, but should read what they are saying to judge if what they are saying is credible or not |
|
|
|
Would hidden service hosts not be relatively obvious, if only for the amount of data they upload? Users of dark and normal web through Tor would be downloading more than they ever upload. Does Tor use distributed storage? I2P I expect is even more obvious, just disrupt the connections and see a site go offline.  The entry guards and the "middle nodes" would also be uploading a large amount of tor related traffic. It would probably be advantageous for a hidden service to also act as a middle node in order to hide it's identity |
|
|
|
Awesome move by openbazaar: https://blog.openbazaar.org/migration-of-our-project-funds-to-a-multisig-address/(1) Developers can be malicious Our threat model involves powerful agents at play. These can include malicious governments who have the ability to issue secret warrants legally requiring developers to take certain actions. We therefore follow a trust-but-verify
model in all our development process. As such, certain developers of the project may in the future be legally required to perform actions that they do not agree with, without the ability to communicate this fact to others. Through multisig, we are requiring at least one more developer to perform a check on financial decisions as a safety-net. I don't think a "secret warrant" would generally force a dev to give up control of funds held by the project. A more likely scenario is that the secret warrant would force a dev to make some kind of "back door" to the protocol. While I do agree with them using multisig addresses, I don't think their use is related to the potential for the devs receiving secret wannants |
|
|
|
Vod gives out negative trust to people who are actually attempting to scam. You on the other hand gave out negative trust because someone was pointing out what he perceived to be unfair pricing of what you were selling. Instead of making an argument as to why your pricing was fair, you told armis to fuck off (the same goes to other people who posted in your thread with similar concerns) and when he didn't you gave him negative trust. Although the trust is in fact not moderated, the reason trust should be given out (negative or positive) should be for reasons that measure a person's trustworthiness. The fact that you feel like someone is harassing you is not reason to hand out negative trust. From what I can tell your negative trust was essentially a way to silence your critics. Additionally it appears that you were essentially selling positive trust in the form of overpriced goods. It appears that you were selling things at over market prices, having the buyer paying you first, then you would regularly hand out positive trust after the buyer received his digital good (most of the time it was either amazon gift cards or steam games) |
|
|
|
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 are correct, it was misplaced trust, as SR2 was hacked multiple times to the tune of millions of dollars worth of bitcoin. They were however acting "honestly" and were eventually able to repay users their lost bitcoin by using funds from site commissions. It was only when the site was eventually shut down that users lost money |
|
|
|
“There has to be a way for startups to start up and play by the rules without getting crushed by huge compliance costs,” Benjamin Lawsky, head of the state’s Department of Financial Services, said Sunday at a conference in Las Vegas. Yes, Lawsky. They are welcome to just move to Texas. Like many of your totalitarian state's residents already have. Well one issue with the regulation is that it would force any exchange to hold sufficient reserves to cover all customer deposits which means they cannot engage in fractional reserve banking which people are generally against anyway. The main difference is that exchanges will need to pay to have their operations audited in order to prove they have sufficient reserves |
|
|
|
I hope that SR 3.0 will soon be launching with P2P technology.
Both SR1 and SR2 used a p2p marketplace and the only part that was not p2p was the UI and the escrow |
|
|
|
Sounds to me like Tor is fucking useless.
As of recently tor has become much less secure when connecting to non-tor sites via tor. The TOR project has not been able to determine exactly how law enforcement was able to find the identities/locations of the onion sites, however it is most likely (IMO) that they used some kind of timing attack |
|
|
|
|
IMO that Blake guy deserved to get arrested. He was extremely lazy in regards to security of keeping his identity secret. He apparently was not even using a VPN when connecting to the internet at various hotels, which is something you should do regardless of what you are doing
|
|
|
|
This assume the person on the other end wants a fucking bitcoin.
Yeah, it does assume the person on the other end wants to be free. If they want to be a wage slave, they are obviously going to have to deal with capital controls. Freedom isn't easy and it isn't going to get any easier. You seem to want the "final" solution now. Well... it doesn't exist. We can only hope to work towards it. Except it doesn't quite work that way. What happens is that a substitute currency infiltrates a country at the person to person level. Historically IIRC these events are 10-70ish years in the making. The substitute comes gradually to be accepted and used because it was needed. It was needed because of the debasing of the country's fiat currency by those in power. The substitute is always fought by those who ruined the primary currency, but eventually they need it too. The substitute comes into play because it is necessary expedient in commercial transactions, often having a pricing advantage. So....right now there are people on the other end who "wants a fucking bitcoin." This user base is expanding. It may be expected that being an Internet phenomenon it's expansion may be more like that of Facebook or Ebay than traditional substitute currency models. But the expansion is obviously limited by the (rising) number of people and companies that want to trade with the currency. I'm less interested in Bitcoin's ability to protect me from inflation (I can use more traditional methods for that) and more interested in Bitcoin's ability to allow me to retain complete control of my asset. I could care less if Bitcoin ever becomes a "primary currency" or not. Well if bitcoin cannot protect you from inflation (and you purchasing power of your bitcoin declines substantially) then the fact that you have control over your asset becomes a moot point. |
|
|
|
Seem like government only go after illicit site that named silk road and not other.
The government was actually able to shut down over 400 dark market sites over a ~24 hour period as part of their operation. Only one of these sites were named silk road. |
|
|
|
I think, though that instead of endorsing a "spirit of hopelessness" as to the realistic ability to enact significant change and a return to the rule of law, various IRS and AJ officials should be targeted for impeachment.
I am not suggesting any targeting of people who cannot be shown or proven to engage in unlawful behavior, though. Offhand I don't know if IRS officials remaining have evidence against them that rises to this level.
Holder and Lerner have fled. Many others would (and should) and perhaps this would set an atmosphere in which these administrative agencies would do better than just grovel at the feet of the wanna be king.
It is not easy to impeach a government official. Even when the evidence is there, the process will turn out to be a political one and the democrats will likely try to stonewall any impeachment (as they have the investigation into the IRS) and would likely vote against impeachment regardless of any evidence presented. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with this is that the remaining people who pick up the slack are not only now underpaid because they are working harder for the same paycheck (or at least getting paid a less equitable wage). They are also essentially paying for others not to work because they will also need to pay higher taxes in order to pay for these unemployment benefits
|
|
|
|
How do you know these people cannot survive on their own? What if they are just lazy, like dank? If a city has provided services to a person for a couple years and they are able to work but unwilling, why should the city keep paying for those services?
I agree 100%. If you continue to feed the homeless then they will have no incentive to improve their lives and get a job, ect. [...] I find this kind of myopia amazing; it's kind of like the "it's your fault that you're poor", even if you work several jobs and still barely make enough to feed your family. I wonder if you would hold on to those views if you were to become homeless one day - or do you think it can't possibly happen to you? Well it is generally a person's fault because they live in poverty. Even when they work "several" jobs they are all low/no skill jobs which they are generally overpaid to work. There are also a ridiculous number of social programs that will give the "poor" free food and money for nothing in order to help them "pay for things" |
|
|
|
It baffles me how a 'republican' state like Florida allows the passage of a law making private charity to the homeless illegal, but republicans are constantly up in arms about the government giving handouts to poor people and how the poor are just leeches on the productive members of society. If private charities want to help people, don't make it illegal.
This law is bullshit.
It baffles me how you immediately turn this into something political. The article says the people violated a city ordinance which "bans the public sharing of food." Is this a passive-aggressive way of stopping people from feeding the homeless? Maybe. But it has nothing to do with Republicans, especially considering the mayor of Ft. Lauderdale is a Democrat (not to mention one who opposes same-sex marriage... Uh Oh! http://www.browardbeat.com/fort-lauderdale-mayor-harmed-by-anti-lgbt-vote/). Can't share food in public, what do you think this sis, a free country? if you think this ordinance is about sharing food and not criminalizing homelessness, you're a bit naive not to see the politics of it.  The law is not about sharing food in public, it is about distributing it in a way that people assume it is safe to consume. There are regulations regarding the distribution of food in order to help keep consumers safe from food borne illnesses that can be very harmful and that consumers have little other way to protect themselves against |
|
|
|
Well it looks like that the MSM is not going to report on potential Ebola cases until it is actually confirmed that there is an Ebola case. There had been a number of cases when someone would get sick and then claim to have just gotten back from Africa only to have their claim debunked by the lack of travel records and confirmation by their employer that they have been at work, in the US, during the time they claimed to have been traveling. |
|
|
|
Nobody remembers things more than a year away.
Remember last year when Republicans shut down the government and everyone talked about the political price they would have to pay in the 2014 elections?
That was so long ago.
I think that was the liberal media saying that. It was their way of trying to manipulate congress into giving up their demands and giving into the demands of president obama |
|
|
|
The people in the copyright industry are delusional and have made up these numbers of sales that they have 'lost' by claiming that said amount of people downloading this equals to however many sales they could have gotten if the technology didn't exist, I'd also like to point out that these same scumbags never stick up for independent or small artists and consistently rip them off.
This.. I wouldnt' pay more than a buck to watch a movie, and no more than 10cents for a stupid song. Ever since RIAA and MPAA gotten too big, esp. after recruiting big label politicians (Chris Dodd IIRC) I have made it a point to avoid visiting cinema halls and purchasing dvd/blurays etc. I use redbox for movies, and listen to songs on youtube. You are still effectively paying for the movies with redbox via the rental fee or monthly fee (whichever would apply) and are paying for the ability to listen to the songs via the advertisements that are on youtube. You need to remember that you are receiving something of value by watching a movie/listening to a song (entertainment) and there is no reason why you should not pay for this value |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
