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

Silk Road 2.0 Launches

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 243 posts

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#181

Post by TylerE »

davmre wrote: post #162
TylerE wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good does that do if the sellers are also fake?

The fake seller issue is independent of the honeypot issue. There was nothing stopping anyone from creating fake sellers on the original Silk Road. I assume the main reason it didn't happen is that doing so would only help catch buyers, and governments really want to catch sellers.

I think you missunderstand me... I'm saying what if the sellers are also honeypots? Encryption means nothing if the NSA created the "sellers" key in the first place.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#182

Post by bionsuba »

dragonwriter wrote: post #176
bionsuba wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is up to the society What is this society that you refer to. Surely it can be the people of the nation, because only 30%-ish of the population votes, so the majority can't be said to be in agreement (I also never recall a nation wide vote on the legality of drugs). Are you referring to politicians' decisions? They are an even smaller part of the overall population and don't even represent the people that they ar…

> because only 30%-ish of the population votes, The choice to let other people choose for you is still a choice.

Its not allowing people to chose for you, its simply not participating. Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent to an action of others choosing, its akin to saying 0 equals 1.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#183

Post by Jonovono »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #142
malandrew wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would think that they'd start moving to technologies that are decentralized using technologies such as distributed hash tables. This puts the onus on the users to have a client app that helps host the transaction system for everyone else. The clients would openly share the buy and sell orders and then communication would moved to an encrypted channel that supports perfect forward secrecy. The only part that osten…

You don't need the ledger to be centralized either. A bitcoin style blockchain stores transaction histories tied to a specific set of keys/wallets. In the future I imagine some sort of reputation system will be maintained using this.

Ya. Wouldn't it just have to be something like they are doing with Namecoin (decentralised DNS)

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#184

Post by Geep »

JackFr wrote: post #61
andrewljohnson wrote: post #3

I'd never buy heroin from a website, but I see the Silk Road as cyber-civil-disobedience, and I hope the persona of DPR and the site itself are as unsinkable as they claim. The drug war is a ghastly thing, and the number of people we lock up in the US is more shameful than our foreign policy. You can begrudge the first DPR his lame security, shady murder contracts, and ill-gotten fortune, but he's the product of our…

> You can begrudge the first DPR his lame security, shady murder contracts, and ill-gotten fortune, but he's the product of our system, and his shame is our shame. That is probably the dumbest thing I've read in months.

How about you back that up with something...

It's actually quite spot on. The only reason the Silk Road is used is because there's a need for it. A need that's created by our current litigious and unproductive drug laws.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#185

Post by dragonwriter »

bionsuba wrote: post #182
dragonwriter wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because only 30%-ish of the population votes, The choice to let other people choose for you is still a choice.

Its not allowing people to chose for you, its simply not participating. Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent to an action of others choosing, its akin to saying 0 equals 1.

> Its not allowing people to chose for you,

Yes, choosing not to vote is allowing other people to choose for you. You have the choice to participate in the decision or not, and you choose not to participate. That means you are choosing to allow other people to choose for you.

> Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent

Consent is not the same thing as choice (it may require choice, but it is not equivalent to it.)

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#186

Post by daughart »

consonants wrote: post #172
daughart wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Seriously? You don't think that sending a schedule I substance to an unknowing stranger through the mail and across state lines isn't irresponsible? Are you going to valiantly turn yourself in if your neighbors get raided? If you get drugs shipped to your house, they will charge and probably convict you. Doesn't mean it would hold up in an appeal, but why would you risk an innocent's life, freedom, finances, and soci…

32 pounds of marijuana in that case. If you were going to do a test run in this way, you could send a single schedule IV Xanax or something. I'm not saying it's a good idea but the likelihood of putting your neighbors in danger is probably smaller than many common actions. It's probably less dangerous statistically than giving them baked goods with nuts.

All I was responding to is your statement, "One of the most irresponsible things I've ever read." If I ranked all statements I've ever read in order of irresponsibility, this is pretty middling.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#187

Post by davmre »

TylerE wrote: post #181
davmre wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fake seller issue is independent of the honeypot issue. There was nothing stopping anyone from creating fake sellers on the original Silk Road. I assume the main reason it didn't happen is that doing so would only help catch buyers, and governments really want to catch sellers.

I think you missunderstand me... I'm saying what if the sellers are also honeypots? Encryption means nothing if the NSA created the "sellers" key in the first place.

My point is that you don't have to control the marketplace itself in order to create honeypot sellers. There was nothing stopping law enforcement from registering honeypot sellers on the original Silk Road. Controlling the marketplace itself would let them avoid the (trivial) registration fee to create a honeypot seller, but doesn't otherwise give them any extra power.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#188

Post by GhotiFish »

mkramlich wrote: post #122

The interesting thing to me is that, in theory, the same kinds of extreme privacy-protecting, anonymity-maximizing measures which can be used to host any kind of Silk Road, or to visit it and use it, can ALSO be used by... wait for it... wait for it... yes the law enforcement folks. In other words, how can you be sure that this new Silk Road 2.0 is not a sting honey pot setup by the FBI itself? I don't buy stuff like…

to be honest. When I first read it, I assumed that it was just a rouge organization looking to defraud the ex customers of the old Silk Road.

As a black hat, that would of being my first play. The presence of ex Silk Road moderators does a little bit to assuage those fears, but they could be fooled just as any other person. Truly, I would never trust this Silk Road. Then again, I wouldn't of trusted the old Silk Road either.

Re: Silk Road 2.0 Launches

#189

Post by warfangle »

jarrett wrote: post #53
computer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With good opsec (i.e. only PGP-encrypted messages) sellers should still be able to operate safely. Buyers slightly less, considering that the sellers might be cops (which is also the case on a non-honeypot site), or because the PGP-keys of the sellers might be fake (for MITM). But considering that feds generally seem to target sellers, I don't think the usefulness of this as a honeypot would be huge. But it's definit…

> considering that the sellers might be cops Why wouldn't law enforcement pose as buyers, as well? This is a common tactic in narcotics enforcement. Entrapment often isn't an issue, as the seller took the first step of advertising the drugs for sale. Are you getting at the fact that the buyer must have a receiving address, while the seller can ship anonymously? I would be skeptical of that. If I were attempting to tr…

> Why wouldn't law enforcement pose as buyers, as well?

And then you end up with covert LEO buying, and covert LEO selling ... and find yourself knee deep in a Philip K Dick novel.

Post reply on HN