Live data from Hacker News

On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

nautil.us

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#81
post #79
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what we are discussing is externalities. For example you might have a land owner and a factory, and both parties involved are perfectly happy for the factory to pump toxic waste straight into the ground. Neither party wants the police involved. The economic exchange is between two mutually cooperative parties, but... they are often not the only ones affected by the trade. Which is why we regulate pollutants.

Your analogy of the polluting factory works if discussing the substances you listed which are not passively controlled under use, or in the case of second hand smoke. I think we can (and must) discuss those seperately for the sake of clarity of conversation. On the topic at hand, using heroine to intoxicate one’s self is very victimless. Injection needles are sharp and carry disease. Alright, but scissors are sharp,…

> using heroine to intoxicate one’s self is very victimless.

I have never used it, but have lost friends to it. How am I not a victim?

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#82
post #73
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero. There can be huge negative externalities involved with drug use, as anyone with a family member who has a drug problem could tell you. Even in the most enlightened societies one would have to acknowledge that support and rehabilitation for the small percentage of users who have p…

> Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero. The sale and consumption of sugary drinks is not victimless either, but there's a multi-billion dollar industry behind it. You're making a great argument for regulating Coca-Cola. (And it's one I happen to agree with.)

Yet if we compare the regulated drug market to the unregulated one (mostly perscription painkillers vs marijuana) the regulated market has arguably worse outcomes and higher costs.

Also, Kurz Gesagt has a great video on addiction--it's not as simple as blaming the problems/externalities solely on drugs: https://youtu.be/ao8L-0nSYzg

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#83
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy of the polluting factory works if discussing the substances you listed which are not passively controlled under use, or in the case of second hand smoke. I think we can (and must) discuss those seperately for the sake of clarity of conversation. On the topic at hand, using heroine to intoxicate one’s self is very victimless. Injection needles are sharp and carry disease. Alright, but scissors are sharp,…

> using heroine to intoxicate one’s self is very victimless. I have never used it, but have lost friends to it. How am I not a victim?

You are a victim. ‘Victimless’ is of course a relative descriptor. A ‘victimless crime’ is generally a crime without violations of civil liability. Drug use is still widely considered non-victimless, on the grounds that drug use generates wide untamely chaos and cruelty. And so we banned it. When I say drug use is a victimless crime, I mean to reasses that view. To me, it’s an unfocused assessment of the issue and a reactionary solution to boot.

Losing friends to drug overdoses is terrible and not to be devalued. I’ve lost 2 close friends to drug overdoses: one heroine and another prescription painkillers, both while I was off at college. I really understand.

If we map an event chain to the tragedy, things get existential fast. We have to ask why they used the drugs. Maybe it was peer pressure, maybe depression, self-esteem. My cousin is addicted to painkillers prescribed to him for a back injury from his best friend hitting him with a jet ski. My point is just that things are usually very complicated. Naturally, we want someone to blame, but let’s be cautious, lest we create new problems.

Concluding we are victims of the substance makes sense in numerous ways, but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and has failed outright as a solution to the problem (see war on drugs) and I think we can do better.

If we intend to prevent it from happening again to you and others, we want to look at the causes with an open mind.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#84
post #60

For those that missed it yesterday, Nautilus is on the brink of bankruptcy [1], yet here it is once again with an article featured on the HN frontpage. If you appreciate the content, and are in a position to do so, please consider subscribing. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977166

Luckily, even if Nautilus goes under, this content can be found in the following book, https://www.amazon.com/Who-Can-You-Trust-Technology/dp/15417... , from which this article is copied.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#85
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero. There can be huge negative externalities involved with drug use, as anyone with a family member who has a drug problem could tell you. Even in the most enlightened societies one would have to acknowledge that support and rehabilitation for the small percentage of users who have p…

Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero. The selling of drugs may be undesirable some people's minds, "society" may decide it should be suppressed. That's your judgment but drug use remains "victimless" in the sense I described earlier - all people involved want the event to happen. Theft or assault are against cooperat…

all people involved want the event to happen

Obviously false. The people cleaning up after an overdose don't want it to happen. The family watching a member trash a career don't want it to happen. "Involved" doesn't begin to capture the number of people dealing with the event if you just consider the direct participants.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#86
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using heroine to intoxicate one’s self is very victimless. I have never used it, but have lost friends to it. How am I not a victim?

You are a victim. ‘Victimless’ is of course a relative descriptor. A ‘victimless crime’ is generally a crime without violations of civil liability. Drug use is still widely considered non-victimless, on the grounds that drug use generates wide untamely chaos and cruelty. And so we banned it. When I say drug use is a victimless crime, I mean to reasses that view. To me, it’s an unfocused assessment of the issue and a…

And their families are victims, also.

You've got some good points, but your 'victimless' assertion is highly questionable.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#88
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug dealing is commerce that happens to be illegal. It's completely logical that most of the considerations of an ordinary market apply here. Drugs are a "victimless crime" in the technical sense that if all goes as planned, none of the people involved would have any complaint afterwards. The thing is, the article doesn't mention the market for less victim-less crimes. It seems like a market for "murder for hire" wo…

Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero. There can be huge negative externalities involved with drug use, as anyone with a family member who has a drug problem could tell you. Even in the most enlightened societies one would have to acknowledge that support and rehabilitation for the small percentage of users who have p…

> The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero.

There's an argument to be made that most drugs provide a social benefit as well as imposing a social cost, and that for some drugs, the benefit is significantly greater than the cost. Examples might be Modafinil, LSD microdosing, some amphetamines, etc.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#89
post #20

I think it's a really positive thing that people are able to leave reviews for drug purchases. In the absence of FDA regulation, a public reputation system incentivizes dealers to avoid harming their customers with dangerously-adulterated products. In the midst of an opioid crisis, with people overdosing on heroin cut with fentanyl, having this accountability can save lives. There's a subreddit (whose name I won't me…

That subreddit no longer exists.

It does, just with a new name.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#90
As someone who genuinely believes that providing a legitimate (or as legitimate as possible) avenue for people to purchase drugs (I'm less sold on arms trafficking and sale of stolen credit cards) I was surprised to find how much a genuinely felt like I disagreed with the bulk of this articles content.

While I haven't been in the market for any drugs for a while I know enough people who regularly frequency DNM's and I tend to check in every now and then just because I find the whole ecosystem fascinating.

This article seems to imply that the entire dark net market thing is as simple as ebay or airbnb, but it's actually a lot more complicated. There's a ton of extra stuff you need to do to protect yourself not just from the vendor/buyer but also from the market places themselves, because they are also "untrusted" this means things like multisig transactions and the like are a must.

Additionally the view that a vendors pseudonym is important is just flat out untrue since people realised how much money there was to be made by hacking vendor accounts or claiming a known vendors name on a market that vendor does not yet have a presence on. The key thing is being able to do what is generally considered reasonably high degrees of security based validation, by verifying an identity out of band from the market. This means using GPG keys that you have sourced from previous interactions to communicate, double checking with vendors over wickr or secure anonymous email services to ensure they are the person you are dealing with on a marketplace.

Essentially once a vendor has a reputation the marketplace becomes irrelevant entirely. If it where me, I'd rather do a direct deal using GPG encrypted messages over wickr with a vendor I trust than buy from a vendor I don't personally know on a market that I shouldn't trust (exit scamming must be way to tempting).

I admit that I'm not entirely engaged with the current workings of the DNM's at the moment, but other than being a place where new vendors can earn some reputation, the value add isn't that high. And now that it's a mainstream activity (relatively to buying drugs in the open before silk road) I feel like it's only a matter of time before new vendors can earn enough reputation just frequenting reddit boards on the topic and making sure they have good opsec. As soon as they get one or two people happy with what they've bought, it's all word of mouth from there. (Obviously they need to deal with security of being on the clear Web, or just set up their own onion site)

With regards to a point that was mentioned about block chain history being useful here, it isn't. All it does is help law enforcement, unless you mix your coins appropriately through a trusted party in which case the history if your transactions isn't verifiable and it's useless anyway.

What are useful are services like grams, which (at least when I last checked) scraped reviews from market places, reddit, etc and aggregated them based on the vendors public key.

I feel like this article was either written about 5 or so years ago, or the information it contains simply hasn't been updated in a very very long time.

Post reply on HN