[2014-05-07] Silk Road 2.0 Now Larger Than Silk Road Ever Was

[hilariousandco]

Well the way to go is to make escrows off site and decentralised, which is what I think they plan to do. For these markets to survive they need to be fully decentralised really.

If they take-away the escrow, then it becomes a peer-to-peer trading in SR 2.0. Nothing wrong in that, although it is riskier. But right now I am hearing about a lot about accounts of established vendors being hacked and further used for conning the unsuspecting buyers.

I suspect a lot of them are using the 'hacked' excuse. I think most just probably turned and took advantage of the lack of escrow. Do they not have any form of 2-factor auth on vendor accounts?

[indiemax]

I would be very weary about using SR2.0, or any of the many others out there. I just know how easy it would be to rob someone on there/get scammed....

Rubbish,how do you easily get scammed by escrow,

it's used on this very site for safety and SL2,  idiot

[hilariousandco]

I would be very weary about using SR2.0, or any of the many others out there. I just know how easy it would be to rob someone on there/get scammed....

Rubbish,how do you easily get scammed by escrow,

it's used on this very site for safety and SL2,  idiot

They removed the escrow last time I checked, and that's how people got scammed.

[indiemax]

I would be very weary about using SR2.0, or any of the many others out there. I just know how easy it would be to rob someone on there/get scammed....

Rubbish,how do you easily get scammed by escrow,

it's used on this very site for safety and SL2,  idiot

They removed the escrow last time I checked, and that's how people got scammed.

True,I should have pointed out that I meant there are lots of other markets on The darknet that do use escrow,safely

[passionsurf]

I would be very weary about using SR2.0, or any of the many others out there. I just know how easy it would be to rob someone on there/get scammed....

Rubbish,how do you easily get scammed by escrow,

it's used on this very site for safety and SL2,  idiot

They removed the escrow last time I checked, and that's how people got scammed.

True,I should have pointed out that I meant there are lots of other markets on The darknet that do use escrow,safely

Really? Like what?

[MrPiggles]

Escrow is not safe either.

Plenty of site operators have stolen escrow funds.

Multisig escrow is the only way you can even claim your money is safe

[bryant.coleman]

True,I should have pointed out that I meant there are lots of other markets on The darknet that do use escrow,safely

The other markets don't have the variety which SR 2.0 offers. Most of them have only two or three active vendors, and at the most 100 items on display. Compare that to the SR 2.0, which is having thousands of active vendors and tens of thousands of merchandise.

[KSGuy]

I visited the original one a few times, never bought anything. I'll have to check out SR2 if it's still around one of these days.

[turvarya]

Most of the time stopping cold turkey wont kill you and continuing to take the drugs is far more dangerous. And I smoked for about a year in high school and just decide to stop one day. It's not easy, but it really is just down to your own willpower. Same goes for any other drugs. People can do a lot of things if they only put their mind and willpower to it.

But most People are just not going to do that.
When you really think about laws, you have to take in account, that they are for everyone, also the stupid ones and I don't even trust the average Person with this issue. If it is really no Problem at all to just legally try out some Heroin, we would have more drug addicts, which will never get away from their addiction, than any System(regardless which Country) can handle.

We can't be responsible for the actions of others, nor does anybody have the right to tell an adult what he can and cannot put into his body. And making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from taking them, it just pushes their use underground and makes criminals out of the users and cartels and kingpins out of the suppliers.

In a Society we are responsible for the Action of others. That's the Definition of a Society. The Actions of others influence us.
I don't understand, why you suddenly turned to this Extrem-Anarcho-POV.

Some post earlier, you did recognize laws.

Alcohol can make you see other people as monsters and can also turn you into one. Logic should be used in most of these cases. You shouldn't smoke or drink whilst pregnant, and you shouldn’t do any other drugs either as they all harm your baby.

If you are addicted and realize you are pregnant, it is not like you can just stop taking drugs. That's the Definition of an addiction.
I know that alcohol isn't as safe as most People think, but there are still a lot of worse stuff out there.

All it ever takes is for an addict to just stop, and they're not just harming themselves anymore but another, and they should have help with that, and if they don't stop then that could be punishable by law.

You're confusing yourself and not getting what I'm saying as these are not comparable at all. How can we be responsible for what other people choose to do? We can punish them if their actions effect others though, but that is their choice they made.  I am not responsible for what you do and vice versa, but if either of us do something that harms or endangers others then we can be punished by law for that careless/reckless crime.

We can prevent them from endangering others. Isn't it better to prevent a murder than punishing the murderer?
I think, that's the whole Point of making drugs illegal. Sure, it isn't bad, if someone takes drugs once(in most cases), but if someone takes drugs regularly over a Long time, it is pretty likely that he will harm others on one way or another. The freedom of a Person today, shouldn't affect the safety and health of others tomorrow(same goes for laws to protect the envirement)
Like I said at the beginning, I am all for some more legalization of drugs, but I don't want laws that say "Sure, take whatever you want, we don't care as Long as you don't harm others", that's not better than saying "Sure, you can buy weapons of mass destruction, but don't harm others"

[Gogo ppp]

I visited the original one a few times, never bought anything. I'll have to check out SR2 if it's still around one of these days.

Keep us informed.

[bryant.coleman]

There is some bad news. A citizen of the Netherlands, Cornelis Jan Slomp (known as SuperTrips in SR 2.0) is facing a 40-year jail term in the US. As part of his plea agreement with prosecutors, he is cooperating with law enforcement in exchange for a recommended 15-year prison sentence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-trafficker-pleads-guilty-in-chicago-to-distributing-drugs-over-underground-silk-road-website-20140508,0,5832398.story

[notthematrix]

Or, maybe it has survived so long because it is the Feds running this site?   Is that beyond the realm of reason?

yes it is , they use multisig for escrow , so there is no way feds can do anything extra to find or disturb users.
the site it self does not have any extra power over its users.
its besed on CANT do evil.
instead of don't do evil.

[notthematrix]

There is some bad news. A citizen of the Netherlands, Cornelis Jan Slomp (known as SuperTrips in SR 2.0) is facing a 40-year jail term in the US. As part of his plea agreement with prosecutors, he is cooperating with law enforcement in exchange for a recommended 15-year prison sentence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-trafficker-pleads-guilty-in-chicago-to-distributing-drugs-over-underground-silk-road-website-20140508,0,5832398.story

the only thing he can tell is the addresses , witch don't say anything why?
you can give anybody's address!
build a site on the rule of cant do evil and this guy useless.

[bryant.coleman]

the only thing he can tell is the addresses , witch don't say anything why?
you can give anybody's address!
build a site on the rule of cant do evil and this guy useless.

He has already entered in to a plea bargain with the Florida police guys... so no use in discussing it further here. He was a complete idiot, what else we could say about this incident?

[foggyb]

What if Silk Road 2.0 didn't have any customers, but claimed they did, then claimed they were hacked, then claimed all it's customers were to be made whole, with nobody complaining because there were no customers in the first place. Now that the hole is plugged sans a leak, trust is now established to garner real customers to participate in the long con.

What if Bitcoin is make believe and everyone has been hired to play a prank on you?

What if everything that's happening to you is a hallucination.......

[bryant.coleman]

I visited the original one a few times, never bought anything. I'll have to check out SR2 if it's still around one of these days.

lol.. SR 2.0 is still there. And it had been there for the past 6-7 months. Many people are saying that it is a FBI honeypot. But I disagree with that. Those vendors who were arrested, they just had their stupidity to blame.

[teukon]

I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so.

What if a person is able to drive drunk without harming anyone?  Should driving be illegal?

Nah. If someone plants a bomb and it doesn't kill anyone then that doesn't mean they're not guilty of a crime.

How is driving drunk analogous to planting a bomb where driving sober is not?

Even when sober, it is possible to cause a fatal accident.  Indeed, road accidents are a relatively common way of being killed.  Could you clarify your position on the legality of driving sober?

To return to my main point:  What if I'm able to prove that I can drive sufficiently well while drunk?  Perhaps I could elect to pass my driving test while drunk.  It may be that, while drunk, I'm still safer on the road than many motorists.

[turvarya]

I meant just the fact of using drugs shouldn't be illegal. Obviously the caveat of as long as you're not harming anyone else applies here. I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but drink driving obviously should be and quite rightly is so.

What if a person is able to drive drunk without harming anyone?  Should driving be illegal?

Nah. If someone plants a bomb and it doesn't kill anyone then that doesn't mean they're not guilty of a crime.

How is driving drunk analogous to planting a bomb where driving sober is not?

Even when sober, it is possible to cause a fatal accident.  Indeed, road accidents are a relatively common way of being killed.  Could you clarify your position on the legality of driving sober?

To return to my main point:  What if I'm able to prove that I can drive sufficiently well while drunk?  Perhaps I could elect to pass my driving test while drunk.  It may be that, while drunk, I'm still safer on the road than many motorists.

You drive worse, when you are drunk. That is a biological fact. You can't really argue about that.
When a cop catches you drunk driving, you can't just say: "But I am driving drunk, for 20 years and never had an accident". That is not the point of this law. The point is, that when you drive drunk, there is a higher possibility that you have an accident. When a lot of people drive drunk, there will be more accidents, than when they are not. It is risk management.  It also doesn't matter, that there are also car accidents with sober drivers.
Most people believe, that bad things are not happening to them, until they do happen to them.

[teukon]

You drive worse, when you are drunk. That is a biological fact. You can't really argue about that.

I'm not arguing that.  I'll happily concede it for the purpose of this discussion.

It is risk management.

Precisely.  So it is with laws against the possession and use of certain drugs.  Buried as it was in my questioning style, this was my point.

It also doesn't matter, that there are also car accidents with sober drivers.

Nonsense.  This is central to the debate if we are justifying the law from the point of view of risk management rather than ethics.  How many people are killed by sober drivers each year?  To society, is the freedom to drive worth the increased mortality?

Most people believe, that bad things are not happening to them, until they do happen to them.

Irrelevant.

[turvarya]

To society, is the freedom to drive worth the increased mortality?

Yes. Driving has a purpose. I hope you don't need me to explain it to you. It is obvious.
The purpose of drinking is fun. The purpose of drunk driving is, you don't wanna spend money for a taxi or you don't like public transportation. That's just no good reason to allow it, when there is a high risk to it. Therefor it is forbidden. It is really simple.