by /u/Fraudster4lifes · 17th March, 2024 08:58 in /d/CafeDread
0 votes · 26 comments
- /u/ElCaptinoJackarino 19th February, 2024 - 20:56 What's the actual address? Just DarkNetTrust with dot onion doesn't load anything
by /u/[deleted] · 18th February, 2024 16:49 in /d/DarkNetMarkets
0 votes · 3 comments
- /u/ElCaptinoJackarino 10th March, 2024 - 14:08 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. 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.
by /u/QuickieFlippie · 10th March, 2024 08:06 in /d/CafeDread
0 votes · 45 comments
- /u/ElCaptinoJackarino 12th March, 2024 - 02:07 I mean, if they live close enough (say, 6 hrs drive or less) and the shipment was large enough (say, several thousand dollars worth sent to a dude who ordered a gram), I could see a vendor doing that. They figure its the only chance they have getting it back. Unfortunately. But ya I'd believe it.
by /u/EveISHott4093 · 10th March, 2024 01:59 in /d/CafeDread
0 votes · 101 comments
- /u/ElCaptinoJackarino 15th March, 2024 - 01:04 We don't negotiate with terrorists.
by /u/FullSemiAuto77 · 14th March, 2024 23:11 in /d/DarkNetMarkets
0 votes · 17 comments
- /u/ElCaptinoJackarino 15th March, 2024 - 01:03 Didn't the site prevent PGP until a confirmed order? Or was that Archtype? I think it was Incog. That sure seems suspect in hindsight. Almost as if the whole thing was planned from the jump to ensure as much potentially incriminating evidence was available to blackmail with as possible.
by /u/FullSemiAuto77 · 14th March, 2024 23:11 in /d/DarkNetMarkets
0 votes · 17 comments