Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#141

Post by chisleu »

sannee wrote: post #115
oskarth wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> offer incentives to FE (finalize early, ie release funds from the arbitrage) for months Not too familiar with DNMs, but why would someone agree to this? Just to save a buck? Seems clear it is against your interest, good or bad reputation. What's the stated rational from seller for this, just "I want more liquidity"?

> Just to save a buck? Exactly, FE listings tend to be cheaper > What's the stated rational from seller for this I think that "bitcoins dropped in price by 30% since two seconds ago" was at least one of the reasons.

That was some of it, but often it was just because cash could be tied up in shipped product for a week or two if you didn't FE. It kept "good" vendors from being able to grow because they weren't able to increase their supply to list new product on the sites.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#142

Post by scoggs »

baddox wrote: post #107
TheAdamist wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech companies get busted for sending golden hardware samples to review sites, the truth eventually comes out. Although no one dies if their video card is slower than advertised.

See also Volkswagen.

Exactly what I was thinking but I didn't want to drag in an outside subject without.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#143

Post by pheldagryph »

gt_ wrote: post #97
pheldagryph wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And their families are victims, also. You've got some good points, but your 'victimless' assertion is highly questionable.

Which part? ‘Victimless’ is a subjective term, and maybe too much to justify it’s use.

I think you're right about that.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#144

Post by fatbird »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #134
fatbird wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true, but not really relevant to the issue of consent. Those people choose to be involved. Their decision to be involved in a drug user's life doesn't give them the right to dictate the life choices of the drug user.

It's not an issue of consent when you're describing it as "victimless". The victims, those who suffer from it, are far more widely spread than just those who can directly consent to the act.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#145

Post by belorn »

lawl wrote: post #135
belorn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminalizing alcohol is a bad way for society to recover the cost associated with it. Social factors mean that enforcement becomes poor and very selective, you lose tax revenues so there is less money in the short term to use for enforcement, and as you said the evidence is clear. Instead there seems to be two effective strategies, both used for alcohol and tobacco, which is taxation and state monopolies. Taking Swe…

Finland, not sweden, but taxation seems to be a shitty solution too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilju > Due to its low cost and simple production process, kilju is mostly drunk by low-income people or heavy drinkers, such as students and alcoholics.

Home made wine (up to 20%) is legal to make and drink also in Sweden, but it is illegal to sell. In general I think there is a few limiting factors in play:

Students generally rush the process and the quality and taste is terrible.

Car ownership among students is down and on campus there is fewer reason to drive.

The culture is generally focused on hard spirits and beer, not wine.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#146

Post by CryptoPunk »

fatbird wrote: post #144
CryptoPunk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true, but not really relevant to the issue of consent. Those people choose to be involved. Their decision to be involved in a drug user's life doesn't give them the right to dictate the life choices of the drug user.

It's not an issue of consent when you're describing it as "victimless". The victims, those who suffer from it, are far more widely spread than just those who can directly consent to the act.

Victimhood is all about consent. A victim is someone who had their rights violated, which is conventionally understood as having their person or property transgressed without their consent.

Creating a moral framework that gives those who consented to involvement in a third party's life a right to determine how the person and property of that third party is utilized necessarily creates tension with the individual rights of the third party, and conflicts with a moral framework based on both consent and self-ownership.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#147

Post by fatbird »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #146
fatbird wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an issue of consent when you're describing it as "victimless". The victims, those who suffer from it, are far more widely spread than just those who can directly consent to the act.

Victimhood is all about consent. A victim is someone who had their rights violated, which is conventionally understood as having their person or property transgressed without their consent. Creating a moral framework that gives those who consented to involvement in a third party's life a right to determine how the person and property of that third party is utilized necessarily creates tension with the individual righ…

Your definition of victimhood is idiosyncratic, and apparently quite specific to your moral framework, which seems to have an obvious problem in that it declares all externalities to be moot (i.e., no involuntarily affected party has moral standing because it creates tension and conflict with the moral standing of the directly consenting participants).

That's fine if that's how you want to resolve the problem--just declare that no indirect participants matter--but insofar as it fails to appreciate their experience, I think you're going to have trouble selling your moral framework as anything but a Randian fantasy of callous self-determination.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#148

Post by CryptoPunk »

fatbird wrote: post #147
CryptoPunk wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victimhood is all about consent. A victim is someone who had their rights violated, which is conventionally understood as having their person or property transgressed without their consent. Creating a moral framework that gives those who consented to involvement in a third party's life a right to determine how the person and property of that third party is utilized necessarily creates tension with the individual righ…

Your definition of victimhood is idiosyncratic, and apparently quite specific to your moral framework, which seems to have an obvious problem in that it declares all externalities to be moot (i.e., no involuntarily affected party has moral standing because it creates tension and conflict with the moral standing of the directly consenting participants). That's fine if that's how you want to resolve the problem--just d…

My definition of victimhood is the conventional one, and how it is used in a formal context.

It also addresses externalities, by distinguishing nonconsensual acts from consensual ones. If a person deliberately over-eats, and dies from obesity related illness, they are not a victim, and their family's loss is not an externality, as the term is defined in economics. If a person is shot and killed by an armed robber, they are a victim, and their family's pain and suffering is an externality.

The reason the former is not an externality is that the 'asset' which the third parties lose, which, let's say, is the love and care the individual would have given their family if they had stayed alive, was destroyed by the wilful acts of that individual. Since the love and care is the individual's to give, it is also the individual's to choose to not give. Their decision to not give it is therefore not an externality.

In the case of the latter, the victim had every intention of giving their love and care to their family for many years to come, and would have done so, if their individual rights had not been violated in the act of murder that they were the victim of.

This is a coherent moral framework that is consistent with the definition of both 'victim' and 'externality', and exactly how the justice system sees victimhood and damages.

>>I think you're going to have trouble selling your moral framework as anything but a Randian fantasy of callous self-determination.

Comments like this don't really add anything to the discussion, except perhaps revealing your own presuppositions and ideological biases.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#149

Post by numismatex »

joe_the_user wrote: post #70
zxcmx wrote: 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…

With the illegality of it, and the nature of addictive drugs it should remain illegal until regulated. I've seen enforcers for even marijuana dealers in illegal states. And what can you do? Report them, possibly get hurt worse and possibly die? The costs aren't predicated merely on enforcement, it's the scumbags making the quick buck because they can't do anything else that create the social cost as well. Think of the sum social cost of asshats like the crack and coke dealers of the 1980s.

Re: On the Darknet, Reputation Is Everything

#150

Post by gwern »

icpmacdo wrote: post #98

Its funny seeing the HN famous Gwern in the comments of this article.

Arguably, you should phrase that as 'funny seeing the DNM famous Gwern showing up in the HN comments of this article' :). I'm much better known for my DNM work like my DNM archives than I am on HN, I think.
Post reply on HN