Reddit's Boston marathon bomber (or whatever it was) fiasco comes to mind where they fingered the wrong guy. What we'll have is people doxxing others saying they are pharaoh just to 'swat' an enemy. A mob is still a mob and usually mindless.

very Well said. Yes they did cross A line where its Not just moneys, They are trying to hurt ppl's Lives. We deal With and Come to except DDoS and exit as Part of the Territory, But this a Bad look for Pharo and firm.

Is it possible smart contacts could be utilized to bypass the middleman for escrow? I know XMR couldn't do it but many crypto can (ADA, SOL, etc). Problem is they don't have the anonymity. But perhaps a solution could be found. Idk how but programmers could look into it, ya know? Necessity is the mother of invention. We need an anonymous coin with smart contracts, do we not? Cut out the middleman for escrow, thereby eliminating the market's ability to exit scam with user/vendor funds. The markets could simply facilitate the transactions for a fee. Is such a thing possible? Idk. But if you/whoever knows any crypto developers perhaps you could reach out and ask if it's even feasible theoretically, and if so, what would it take to implement, and THAT could be crowdfunded. Could research Beam, Discreet Network, Secret Monero Bridge, or check out privacy coins one by one for anonymous contracts coinmarketcap dot com /view/privacy/ on clearnet has a list. I'm not knowledgeable enough but surely some are. This would revolutionize markets if some way to bypass the middleman for escrow was found.

really if you cant do your own encryption you probably shouldnt even be on a market

I appreciate you giving this one a chance man. I never thought I would be in favor of a dox unless it was for a pedo...but this situation, idk man, this affects a lot of people and their families and while its still not at the pedo level its still pretty low of them and sets a very bad precedent if there are no consequences and good people really do lose their freedoms because of incognitos greed. not to mention, knowing where the community stands on this I feel is important as well

I've thought about this more, and read some responses that had me really pondering the right answer to this... "but imo doxxing isn't a line to cross" And yet they've chosen to cross it. At which point the question must be asked. Should they be preemptively doxxed to prevent it, or as a retaliatory measure to incentivize against the next would-be scammer/doxxer? Some here believe in the code and sticking to it no matter what. Personally I feel those ppl have been brainwashed from an early age and aren't using critical thinking- they're just automatically rejecting the idea because it's been drilled into their head since a child. If you are TRULY against snitching, like genuinely against it and the repercussions that follow, then how can you stand idly by and say to NOT fight fire with fire if there's a chance it could PREVENT tens of thousands of people from being snitched on. To sit idly by and allow thousands of ppl to be snitched on, but stroke your own ego about how upright your moral convictions are with regard to not snitching yourself, that tells me such a person isn't REALLY against snitching, nor do they REALLY despise it, they just love the admiration they get from the pedestal they put themselves proclaiming no exceptions. Well, your (not YOU you, I mean the collective you) choice to not support doxxing in return very well may result in thousands of ppl getting doxxed. But at least you can pat yourself on the back about what an upstanding person you are adhering to the code. Much good that did everyone. When adhering to the code results in thousands of ppl getting doxxed, vs breaking the code preventing thousands of ppl getting doxxed, what do you REALLY value more- preventing this horrid action from occurring? Or boasting about how you won't partake in it, even as thousands burn in the fire. Anyone who genuinely abhors snitching and despises it, MUST support doxxing this person. To do otherwise would be to cosign thousands of ppl being snitched on. What's worth more- your self pride? Or their lives? Food for thought for everyone.

I feel doxxing is a line never to be crossed, slippery slope and all that. But at the same time, exit scams have to be stopped. And we need to find a way to provide a compelling disincentive for future would-be exit scammers. Something that would make them pause and think, "Idk, if I do this I could be screwing myself for life" Perhaps this is a situation where an exception needs to be made for doxxing. A one-time exception the community agrees upon. The line must never be pushed further. But for exit scams that are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps it should be allowed and supported. Just throwing the idea out there. At the same time, that's not enough. We should approve doxxing exit scammers while at the same time finding a solution moving forward that eliminates the markets' ability to exit scam. Anonymous smart contract crypto. Or direct payment to eatablished, trusted long time vendors with a fee set aside to market for facilitating the transaction (maybe vendor has to pay a percentage of what they receive to cover the fee, and if they don't their vendor privilege is revoked). For vendors not meeting that criteria, perhaps users pay up front still but the vendor is only allowed 3 sales in limbo at once. If a user contests the transaction like the vendor scammed them, their status is revoked until investigation can confirm one way or the other, accounting for buyer's reputation and history as well as the vendor's. 3 sales at a time max ensures if they do scam the amount of money they have at once is limited. Could also add a 1% fee for all transactions that goes into a community fund to cover any buyers scammed. Kinda like insurance, if you will. Since the market won't be a middleman, this fund could cover those scammed. And perhaps the keys to release funds are set up as needing 3 different keys simultaneously. One the market owner holds, and the other two are held by 2 other trusted individuals working for the market. That way it would take all 3 conspiring to scam the fund. Which, while not impossible would make it far less likely. Or maybe the 3 key approach could be used with the current system as is. So if the owner wants to exit scam they'd need to convince two others to get on board. Which judging by the Incog scam, the other refused to be bribed. People do have integrity. At least it would minimize the probability of an exit scam, even though it couldn't eliminate it entirely. All just brainstorming ideas to consider.

But is it okay to doxx the doxxers? Incog is threatening to doxx everyone who didn't encrypt their info.

Fair. Absolutely fair. You're right. They're the ones threatening to doxx. Not us. Once they cross that line, you fight fire with fire.

I agree here. While I would be in support of doxxing the person who is trying to doxx thousands (+++), I think it may result in a lot of wasted effort and potentially getting the wrong person which would have terrible consequences. Maybe everyone just takes it as a lesson to never trust any market as far as you can throw it, and encrypt all your own shit and always use XMR

Idk. There's some seriously elite, upper echelon hackers out there, professionals, not these teenage kiddos targeting their local digital newspaper website. They're rare, but they do exist. And best believe they're on the dark web, for one reason or another. I'm in favor of crowdfunding a bounty. But it requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Has to. Otherwise Witch hunts will ensue. A committee of 12 elected, trusted members should vote on whether the evidence bears the burden of proof (I mean, basically like a real court- there's a reason that system was adopted- it's FAIR, keeps witch hunts at bay, protects the innocent, and ensures the accused are very highly probable of being actually guilty.

Exactly, we are already using these best practices and will continue to grow and learn from the Incognito Exit Scam. I wish us all the best and for the vendors/buyers who lost a major bag. I pray for u all.

Someone provided me a new perspective that really changed how I view this. We're not the ones doxxing. We follow a code. THEY are the ones doxxing, and threatening to dox. Therefore, a dox in response is not a dox. It's a preemptive measure to prevent the doxxing of tens of thousands of people. One way or another, SOMEONE is getting doxxed. Question is, would you rather it be the one person who exit scammed 50,000 ppl and is now blackmailing and extorting under threat of doxing? Or would you rather it be the 50,000 victims who already got screwed. When I see it like that, it's kind of one of those, "even though you don't believe in murder, would you kill a serial killer if you knew it would prevent countless victims from being murdered? A hard question no doubt. But the answer is yes. It has to be. Because if the answer is no, then we're essentially saying we believe in murder. Because we are allowing it to happen when we could have prevented it. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. It's time we do something. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. And the ONLY reason doxxing is justified is because they are threatening to do it first. So it's a defensive measure Fighting fire with fire. Either the thieving POS who stole millions and is extorting us gets doxxed, or the entire community gets doxxed. If my morals are so inflexible I can't even adjust to a situation like this, then Id argue my morals are just for the sake of having morals, not because I actually value doing what's right.

Posting links of any sort is discouraged. There are ways to shortlist links or just include the information the link provides. If you feel it's completely necessary to post a link, it requires Mod approval to be posted. This comment was posted automatically by a bot. All AutoModerator settings are configured by individual communities. Contact this community's Moderators to have your post approved if you believe this was in error.

Motive? I'm all ears to hear out your speculative theories. But I would definitely need to understand motive before I gave this hypothesis any credence.

money

Understand, this dude is the snitch. He's extorting thousands of people under direct threat of snitching. The only way to combat that is for the community to discover who this individual is, and the only way that happens is fighting fire with fire. It ain't cool. It ain't cool at all. But it very well may be the only way to protect tens of thousands of victims from being further victimized by this extorting snitch. So if I gotta choose between them, the one person who just robbed tens of thousands of ppl, spat in their face and mocked them as they then threatened to snitch on whoever doesn't pay up, or the tens of thousands of ppl who were just victimized by this POS... You already know which one I'm choosing. It's not something ppl WANT to do. It's not something anyone would ever even REMOTELY consider if not for the fact the person who just robbed the community for millions is now extorting with blackmail under threat of snitching. It's a defensive measure using their own weapon against them. And that is the only scenario I can think of where it's justified. There's always exceptions to rules. And I'd submit to you that someone trying to snitch on 50,000 ppl, deserves a taste of their own medicine. Not because they stole. As bad as that is, we still follow a code. But once THEY crossed that line, all bets are off.

you im reading that and i get to the part its "you already know which one im choosiong" man there was day i could safely assume the correct answer to that but now days i gotta hesitate and ask which one? fucking shameful where we are i cant get over it. No i dont know bro who you choosing? JK sort of. And NO dude are suggesting snitiching? say youre not please for the love of god say youre not suggesting that. Please say you means omething else even more drastic so to speak although not so much to some i guess.

Suggesting it? We're WAY past suggesting it. Dude is snitching on US. Let that sink in. This ain't about "us snitching". This is about THEM snitching. And the minute someone says they're snitching on US, oh hell no. You open that door, then you've got no one to blame but yourself. I follow a code. No snitching. EVER. But when someone is snitching on me, the rules of the game have changed. THEY are the snitch. THEY have voluntarily chosen to cross that uncrossable line. When that happens, HELL YES get that mf by any means necessary. I'm not specifically saying snitch, but I'm also not saying don't. What I'm saying is, root that punk out of the woodwork and broadcast his name across the Dark web for every cartel member, gang boss, dirty cops moonlighting doing hits on the side, every organized crime member or even just dealers that don't take no shit when it comes to their money and being snitched on, and let whatever happens happen. Let them look over their shoulder the rest of their life. Let them go to bed every night not knowing if some dude in a mask is gonna break his door down with an armed crew. And if LE get his info as a result? Sorry I just don't gaf, because ya know, they crossed that line first. That is the ONE THING you can do that basically nullifies the code. The code is to be followed. But there are always exceptions. Rare exceptions perhaps, but exceptions nonetheless. When someone robs thousands of us then laughs at us while boasting they're going to snitch ON US??? Nah dude, the hell with the code. You just burnt that mf to a crisp. It's to the death now, by any means necessary.

3 days ago was original update - 2 days ago was a further update. not a week. stop spreading FUD.

not for you maybe sorry we dont all see it your way. i never said a week i said two day is too long.FUD what fud you talking about? i could say the same about this site issue til its proven otherwise its all fud i apologize if our feelings are meaniless to you have no baring on your day to day but i dont remember asking you anything either. but this a forum and you do have your place to speak your mind but i ask you why dont I when MY money is involved i most CERTAINLY feel like i have say far as MY money is concerned dont you?