l����������

<form id=vvPdBrbUA><form id=vvPdBrbUA></form></form><em id=vvPdBrbUA><form id=vvPdBrbUA></form></em>

<form id=vvPdBrbUA><nobr id=vvPdBrbUA></nobr></form><address id=vvPdBrbUA><nobr id=vvPdBrbUA><nobr id=vvPdBrbUA></nobr></nobr></address>

Silk Road Forums

Hello gwern

Show unread posts since last visit.

Show new replies to your posts.

December 08, 2013, 01:00:17 am

Home

Search

Profile

Summary

Account Settings

Knowledge Base

Forum Profile

My Messages

Read your messages

Send a message

Logout

Knowledge Base

Silk Road Forums »

Discussion »

Silk Road Discussion »

Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

Reply

Unnotify

Mark unread

Print

Pages: [1]

Author
Topic: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets  (Read 231 times)

Dread Pirate Roberts

Captain

Administrator

Posts: 494

Karma: +272/-12

[Thank]
[Discourage]

« on: Yesterday at 05:54:08 pm »

Quote

This point has come up a lot recently and although I do not intend to get into any great detail on the subject in public, I do need to highlight some issues which this single suggestion encompasses well. Some of the points I wish to raise are similar to what would be discussed between staff and the very highest echelons of Silk Road when we consider new ideas.

I'm not aware of who first suggested it, but there is word spreading that multi-signature addresses are somehow the holy grail on online markets and that it would stop bugs, thefts and problems faced from law enforcements, but this severely overlooks a lot of the practical problems we face as an online market. Yes it is true that it is theoretically more secure than the current bitcoin system as it is backed by strong crypto - but in practice it does not convert so well given steps must be taken in addition to usual market practices.

Right now, as an approximate market figure, PGP uptake is between 8% and 12% (unknown reason for fluctuations but US timezones have the lowest PGP uptake of all). PGP is a relatively straight forward step towards protecting your privacy and as far as the learning curve goes, it is certainly below that of learning to sign multi-signature transactions. So the evidence right now to suggest implementing the idea would be more beneficial than harmful is not true as we find preventing customers from having an easy to use interface will drive them to other markets, ones which are usually less secure and less trustworthy as we have seen with Sheep marketplace. Do not forget, Sheep was cast the eye of doubt when it first come about but because it was an easier to use interface, it took the lions share of the market above Black Market Reloaded which has a long and stable history.

Another concern highlighted by my fellow staff is that to sign a transaction you have two options - local storage or remote services. Remote services would negate the point of the implementation so for this we shall disregard that consideration leaving us with local storage. If a person was to have their hardware seized, holding a bitcoin wallet will then tie you in to the block chain which cannot be concealed and is certainly one of the strongest pieces of evidence which could be presented against an individual. This risk can be significantly mitigated through the use of encryption layers but to the average user it is unlikely they would take such measures and so we are only actually leaving more evidence in less secure places.

Multi-signature transactions will also mean the transaction must be known to all 3 parties and therefore the bitcoin trail faces increased exposure. Silk Road operates and protects users by making it impossible for one party to identify which deposit or withdrawals belongs to which buyer or vendor, something not possible with multi-signature transactions. It could be argued that mixing services may be employed to mitigate such risks but our research has shown only a fraction of users actually mix their bitcoins effectively before placing them into our system and so I have no confidence in such a setup as it provides further evidence for "honeypot vendors" should they ever be set up looking to arrest buyers, and it further prevents lazy vendors from being caught if they do not take the proper precautions. Most users do not mix their bitcoins, but an even smaller user share is those who mix their bitcoins without a single point of failure (ie use more than 1 company/service to mix them) and so if law enforcement were to gain leverage over a mixing service or continued their program of illegally tapping into such services (a credible threat) then this brings the risk of huge exposure for tens of thousands of users.

I hope this has helped clarify at least some of the reasons the administration is reluctant to implement this suggestion in its current form. We do have some ideas to counter some of the above ourselves, but even with that it is difficult to see this as a step in the right direction just yet. We are all for making use of proven technology, but at the same time we must make it as accessible as possible to not drive away those who aren't comfortable with it just yet.

Report to moderator

New vendor registration temporarily closed. Please contact Sarge to upgrade your market account post verification.

Quote 20: Give a man a mask and he will tell you the uncensored truth no matter how ugly it may be.

Fingerprint: 78F5 E03A 2E1D 9614 1ACB 08E1 F328 1B0F 30D3 EB73

whitelightwhiteheat

Jr. Member

Posts: 91

Karma: +9/-2

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 06:06:34 pm »

Quote

wow, am amazed at that 8-12% figure given all that's occurred recently

what the hell is it gonna take to get people to wise up?

Report to moderator

We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are

emancipate yourselves from mental slavery...

Yoda

Hero Member

Posts: 781

Karma: +87/-13

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 06:10:51 pm »

Quote

Quote from: Dread Pirate Roberts on Yesterday at 05:54:08 pm

Right now, as an approximate market figure, PGP uptake is between 8% and 12%

Holy shit!   How is this figure determined?

Looks like I have a lot of work to do.

Report to moderator

Loki

Full Member

Posts: 112

Karma: +7/-64

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 06:36:35 pm »

Quote

Quote from: Dread Pirate Roberts on Yesterday at 05:54:08 pm

\
Right now, as an approximate market figure, PGP uptake is between 8% and 12% (unknown reason for fluctuations but US timezones have the lowest PGP uptake of all). PGP is a relatively straight forward step towards protecting your privacy and as far as the learning curve goes, it is certainly below that of learning to sign multi-signature transactions. So the evidence right now to suggest implementing the idea would be more beneficial than harmful is not true as we find preventing customers from having an easy to use interface will drive them to other markets, ones which are usually less secure and less trustworthy as we have seen with Sheep marketplace. Do not forget, Sheep was cast the eye of doubt when it first come about but because it was an easier to use interface, it took the lions share of the market above Black Market Reloaded which has a long and stable history.

True, people dont have any incentive to secure themselves and typically dont. DPR (the original one) created SR with libertarian values, meaning it practices self-responsibility. I dont think this DPR shares any of the same values as the old one even though he felt it necessary to steal the old DPR's brand. At least if he did then users putting themselves at risk wouldnt be his concern, SR was never meant to be a nanny state but an online platform where people have the choice of being as secure as they want.

Quote

Another concern highlighted by my fellow staff is that to sign a transaction you have two options - local storage or remote services. Remote services would negate the point of the implementation so for this we shall disregard that consideration leaving us with local storage. If a person was to have their hardware seized, holding a bitcoin wallet will then tie you in to the block chain which cannot be concealed and is certainly one of the strongest pieces of evidence which could be presented against an individual. This risk can be significantly mitigated through the use of encryption layers but to the average user it is unlikely they would take such measures and so we are only actually leaving more evidence in less secure places.

The current implementation of p2p escrow (only in practice at themarketplace on i2p) involves the use of a local wallet, either QT or electrum, that a user must use to send and recieve payment. There really is no way around this as putting a wallet anywhere else means trusting the service, and we all know where that leads. I dont see the problem with this though, the real world equivalent of a local wallet is, you guessed it, a wallet. A real wallet. How many of us dont carry one? If you really wanted to cater to those who for some reason shrink back at the idea of actually having to install a piece of software then there is no reason the same couldnt be achieved with an online 3rd party service.

As for a wallet being siezed, it would be easier to seize a hosted wallet simply by serving the hosting company. In any case "tieing one into the blockchain" isnt as much evidence as per the assumptions in your scenario, already having been caught with drugs. Though i like how you dodged the fact that all tx's going into and out of your tumbler can still be associated relatively easily (as was done with SR1 in a research paper and Sheep later on by armchair detectives) with SR.

Im going to bold this so no one misses this: Any transcation going into or out of SR can be easily associated with SR, even if SR's tumbler makes it confusing to trace the path of payments. With a p2p escrow system there is no such association, as everything is p2p.

Quote

Multi-signature transactions will also mean the transaction must be known to all 3 parties and therefore the bitcoin trail faces increased exposure. Silk Road operates and protects users by making it impossible for one party to identify which deposit or withdrawals belongs to which buyer or vendor, something not possible with multi-signature transactions. It could be argued that mixing services may be employed to mitigate such risks but our research has shown only a fraction of users actually mix their bitcoins effectively before placing them into our system and so I have no confidence in such a setup as it provides further evidence for "honeypot vendors" should they ever be set up looking to arrest buyers, and it further prevents lazy vendors from being caught if they do not take the proper precautions. Most users do not mix their bitcoins, but an even smaller user share is those who mix their bitcoins without a single point of failure (ie use more than 1 company/service to mix them) and so if law enforcement were to gain leverage over a mixing service or continued their program of illegally tapping into such services (a credible threat) then this brings the risk of huge exposure for tens of thousands of users.

Once again its not your responsibility to make sure others dont willingly throw themselves into harms way. You and other site administrators have done their part in attempting to educate users about the safety basics of these marketplaces, if people want to be stupid and reckless then no technology is going to protect them. Your arguments about honeypot vendors and backdoored mixing services is specious and unfounded, why bother collecting bitcoin addresses when you have the customers name and address.

Quote

I hope this has helped clarify at least some of the reasons the administration is reluctant to implement this suggestion in its current form. We do have some ideas to counter some of the above ourselves, but even with that it is difficult to see this as a step in the right direction just yet. We are all for making use of proven technology, but at the same time we must make it as accessible as possible to not drive away those who aren't comfortable with it just yet.

No one said p2p had to become the defacto, offer it as 1 of 2 ways to pay. If people want to trust you with thier money then thats their choice to make, as for the rest of us, let the market speak for itself.

Report to moderator

El Presidente

Full Member

Posts: 101

Karma: +23/-2

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Buena Mierda

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 06:52:30 pm »

Quote

Some good points on all sides of the argument and it must be said that we are indeed a proponent of direct payments, or more specifically of having a choice.

However a fundamental problem with person to person transactions is that it places the onus on both parties to wash themselves of the bitcoin trail somehow. This is difficult for skilled individuals knowledgeable in the arts, for the average buyer/seller it is almost beyond reach.

The main scenario we would see is LEO posing as buyers and then being able to ascertain with a high degree of certainty the vendors BTC address. We would expect them to very swiftly kick down the doors of any commercial outfit offering pseudo-anonymity mixing such as Blockchain and extract whatever records were necessary for identifying the user or the actual end wallet.

Until that nut is cracked, a market site holding the coins adds a hop and some 'distance' between buyer and seller and makes it harder for LEO to identify a vendor assuming

a) The site is not run by LEO
b) The records on the site to do not fall into LEO hands

Despite this we still think a choice is always better than having no options but vendors should be aware of the risk of direct payments.

Report to moderator

Vendors : Your PGP key is your business card - don't waste it - http://silkroad5v7dywlc.onion/index.php?topic=/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/none1535.0

All Market Vendor Directory - http://directory4iisquf.onion/

Nero

Jr. Member

Posts: 67

Karma: +9/-1

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Free trade begets freedom.

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 07:56:05 pm »

Quote

DPR,

Thanks for taking the time to address this technology. Your reasoning seems sound. I look forward to the future,

Loki,

How about you develop a market using a p2p escrow system, fund it, advertise it, and see where 'the marketplace' decides to do business.

Your tone and overall attitude blows.

Cheers!

Report to moderator

--  Nero

Tessellated

Vendor

Sr. Member

Posts: 302

Karma: +41/-6

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 08:18:54 pm »

Quote

Quote from: whitelightwhiteheat on Yesterday at 06:06:34 pm

wow, am amazed at that 8-12% figure given all that's occurred recently

what the hell is it gonna take to get people to wise up?

I must have extra smart customers because about 60% of my orders are PGP'd.

Report to moderator

Vendor of high quality LSD and MDMA - http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/tessellated

Loki

Full Member

Posts: 112

Karma: +7/-64

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 08:41:34 pm »

Quote

Quote from: El Presidente on Yesterday at 06:52:30 pm

However a fundamental problem with person to person transactions is that it places the onus on both parties to wash themselves of the bitcoin trail somehow. This is difficult for skilled individuals knowledgeable in the arts, for the average buyer/seller it is almost beyond reach.

Thats actually a problem with any site, p2p or not. Vendors should always be doing this, though buyers have the option depending on how they bought their coin.

Quote

The main scenario we would see is LEO posing as buyers and then being able to ascertain with a high degree of certainty the vendors BTC address. We would expect them to very swiftly kick down the doors of any commercial outfit offering pseudo-anonymity mixing such as Blockchain and extract whatever records were necessary for identifying the user or the actual end wallet.

You realize you can create as many of these as you want.

Quote

Until that nut is cracked, a market site holding the coins adds a hop and some 'distance' between buyer and seller and makes it harder for LEO to identify a vendor assuming

a) The site is not run by LEO
b) The records on the site to do not fall into LEO hands

That hop is otherwise known as a big red target. LEO cant ID vendors who mix and cashout safely no matter where they got the coin from, even directly from LEO.

Quote from: Nero on Yesterday at 07:56:05 pm

Loki,

How about you develop a market using a p2p escrow system, fund it, advertise it, and see where 'the marketplace' decides to do business.

Dont have to, it already exists.

themarketplace.i2p

Report to moderator

Tessellated

Vendor

Sr. Member

Posts: 302

Karma: +41/-6

[Thank]
[Discourage]

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 08:55:38 pm »

Quote

Quote from: Loki on Yesterday at 08:41:34 pm

Dont have to, it already exists.

themarketplace.i2p

Time will tell if it is practical with the current state of bitcoin clients and customer education. I am glad a marketplace is testing this out.

Report to moderator

Vendor of high quality LSD and MDMA - http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion/users/tessellated

Mr Lucy

Jr. Member

Posts: 63

Karma: +1/-6

[Thank]
[Discourage]

- Scandinavian Cocaine - Safe Worldwide Shipping

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 09:01:41 pm »

Quote

Quote from: Loki on Yesterday at 06:36:35 pm

Quote from: Dread Pirate Roberts on Yesterday at 05:54:08 pm

\
Right now, as an approximate market figure, PGP uptake is between 8% and 12% (unknown reason for fluctuations but US timezones have the lowest PGP uptake of all). PGP is a relatively straight forward step towards protecting your privacy and as far as the learning curve goes, it is certainly below that of learning to sign multi-signature transactions. So the evidence right now to suggest implementing the idea would be more beneficial than harmful is not true as we find preventing customers from having an easy to use interface will drive them to other markets, ones which are usually less secure and less trustworthy as we have seen with Sheep marketplace. Do not forget, Sheep was cast the eye of doubt when it first come about but because it was an easier to use interface, it took the lions share of the market above Black Market Reloaded which has a long and stable history.

True, people dont have any incentive to secure themselves and typically dont. DPR (the original one) created SR with libertarian values, meaning it practices self-responsibility. I dont think this DPR shares any of the same values as the old one even though he felt it necessary to steal the old DPR's brand. At least if he did then users putting themselves at risk wouldnt be his concern, SR was never meant to be a nanny state but an online platform where people have the choice of being as secure as they want.

Quote

Another concern highlighted by my fellow staff is that to sign a transaction you have two options - local storage or remote services. Remote services would negate the point of the implementation so for this we shall disregard that consideration leaving us with local storage. If a person was to have their hardware seized, holding a bitcoin wallet will then tie you in to the block chain which cannot be concealed and is certainly one of the strongest pieces of evidence which could be presented against an individual. This risk can be significantly mitigated through the use of encryption layers but to the average user it is unlikely they would take such measures and so we are only actually leaving more evidence in less secure places.

The current implementation of p2p escrow (only in practice at themarketplace on i2p) involves the use of a local wallet, either QT or electrum, that a user must use to send and recieve payment. There really is no way around this as putting a wallet anywhere else means trusting the service, and we all know where that leads. I dont see the problem with this though, the real world equivalent of a local wallet is, you guessed it, a wallet. A real wallet. How many of us dont carry one? If you really wanted to cater to those who for some reason shrink back at the idea of actually having to install a piece of software then there is no reason the same couldnt be achieved with an online 3rd party service.

As for a wallet being siezed, it would be easier to seize a hosted wallet simply by serving the hosting company. In any case "tieing one into the blockchain" isnt as much evidence as per the assumptions in your scenario, already having been caught with drugs. Though i like how you dodged the fact that all tx's going into and out of your tumbler can still be associated relatively easily (as was done with SR1 in a research paper and Sheep later on by armchair detectives) with SR.

Im going to bold this so no one misses this: Any transcation going into or out of SR can be easily associated with SR, even if SR's tumbler makes it confusing to trace the path of payments. With a p2p escrow system there is no such association, as everything is p2p.

Quote

Multi-signature transactions will also mean the transaction must be known to all 3 parties and therefore the bitcoin trail faces increased exposure. Silk Road operates and protects users by making it impossible for one party to identify which deposit or withdrawals belongs to which buyer or vendor, something not possible with multi-signature transactions. It could be argued that mixing services may be employed to mitigate such risks but our research has shown only a fraction of users actually mix their bitcoins effectively before placing them into our system and so I have no confidence in such a setup as it provides further evidence for "honeypot vendors" should they ever be set up looking to arrest buyers, and it further prevents lazy vendors from being caught if they do not take the proper precautions. Most users do not mix their bitcoins, but an even smaller user share is those who mix their bitcoins without a single point of failure (ie use more than 1 company/service to mix them) and so if law enforcement were to gain leverage over a mixing service or continued their program of illegally tapping into such services (a credible threat) then this brings the risk of huge exposure for tens of thousands of users.

Once again its not your responsibility to make sure others dont willingly throw themselves into harms way. You and other site administrators have done their part in attempting to educate users about the safety basics of these marketplaces, if people want to be stupid and reckless then no technology is going to protect them. Your arguments about honeypot vendors and backdoored mixing services is specious and unfounded, why bother collecting bitcoin addresses when you have the customers name and address.

Quote

I hope this has helped clarify at least some of the reasons the administration is reluctant to implement this suggestion in its current form. We do have some ideas to counter some of the above ourselves, but even with that it is difficult to see this as a step in the right direction just yet. We are all for making use of proven technology, but at the same time we must make it as accessible as possible to not drive away those who aren't comfortable with it just yet.

No one said p2p had to become the defacto, offer it as 1 of 2 ways to pay. If people want to trust you with thier money then thats their choice to make, as for the rest of us, let the market speak for itself.

+1 Nicely said, and also because you got too much dislike...

Report to moderator

Love and peace,
MR LUCY

missbliss

Vendor

Jr. Member

Posts: 73

Karma: +5/-1

[Thank]
[Discourage]

❤❤ have fun ❤❤ much love ❤❤ party safe ❤❤

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 09:04:56 pm »

Quote

hi hi

from what i read on the bitcoin forums, there appears to be a big push for the CoinJoin type of transactions to combat the Coin Validation ideas. CoinJoin being the 2-of-2 style where it's many inputs and many outputs.  this seems to be a good method of hiding exactly which inputs go to which outputs. it's also currently in use on the network already, and is advocated by a number of the bigger BTC developers.  it's also trustless, so even the server and other parties dont know what goes where!

without divulging too much, maybe DPR or another admin can shed some light on whether incorporating those transactions would help with our collective privacy.

i believe this has nothing to do with multi sig, which as DPR correctly stated is still a bit too "geeky" for the layperson to correctly figure out. that may all change when multi sig gets a GUI implementation in the upcoming client releases.

finally, this is intended to be more for privacy than escrow protection, so please dont confuse the two! perhaps there is some esoteric way of chaining transactions from a protected multi sig direct buyer/seller escrow where the private key is not hosted by the site, and upon release gets forwarded into a CoinJoin transaction to mask the output.... but thinking about the specifics of that makes my head hurt, especially when trying to calculate transaction fees and commission!

xoxo
-mb

Report to moderator

❤❤Premium Purveyor of a215 Roxies!!❤❤
❤❤my BMR vendor page: http://r6rcmz6lga4i5vb4.onion/index.php?p=/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/noneviewUser&id=/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/none297108
❤❤xoxo❤❤

DoctorClu

Hero Member

Posts: 742

Karma: +88/-30

[Thank]
[Discourage]

We’re all just stories in the end.

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 09:25:04 pm »

Quote

I have never understood the thinking behind this. Equated to street narcotic sales, this sort of debate is like expecting that it is solely the responsibility of your average drug dealer to protect the buyer from law enforcement. Both sides must take their own steps to protect one another if sales are to continue. Obviously, this requires a certain level of trust. The main difference in this scenario of course is anonymity. The buyers of the Silk Road do not know the identity of their vendors, yet vice versa, the vendor has the name and address of the buyer. This is where that same level of trust has to come into play. The market provides a medium for the exchange to occur but so long as the correct precautions are taken on both sides, that medium should not know the identity of either party.

PGP is the obvious and most elegant way to perform these transactions. If a buyer is not willing or is not knowledgeable enough to use it, they are their own worst enemy and would remain so under multi-signature transactions. The current system isn't broken so I see no need to change it.

Report to moderator

StringerBell

Full Member

Posts: 190

Karma: +26/-4

[Thank]
[Discourage]

We don't need to dream no more

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 09:34:35 pm »

Quote

As it is important to be up to date with the latest development it is also important for an organization to not jump
on board with all the latest changes in theory's that has not yet been proved! Change is important but also stability.
It feels good to read that DPR have a balanced and science based approach to this project!

Report to moderator

missbliss

Vendor

Jr. Member

Posts: 73

Karma: +5/-1

[Thank]
[Discourage]

❤❤ have fun ❤❤ much love ❤❤ party safe ❤❤

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 09:42:37 pm »

Quote

Quote from: DoctorClu on Yesterday at 09:25:04 pm

I have never understood the thinking behind this. Equated to street narcotic sales, this sort of debate is like expecting that it is solely the responsibility of your average drug dealer to protect the buyer from law enforcement. Both sides must take their own steps to protect one another if sales are to continue. Obviously, this requires a certain level of trust. The main difference in this scenario of course is anonymity. The buyers of the Silk Road do not know the identity of their vendors, yet vice versa, the vendor has the name and address of the buyer. This is where that same level of trust has to come into play. The market provides a medium for the exchange to occur but so long as the correct precautions are taken on both sides, that medium should not know the identity of either party.

PGP is the obvious and most elegant way to perform these transactions. If a buyer is not willing or is not knowledgeable enough to use it, they are their own worst enemy and would remain so under multi-signature transactions. The current system isn't broken so I see no need to change it.

hi hi

i think you may be slightly over assuming in some areas. for instance, there is no guarantee the name and address on shipping info i receive is the same person who is making the purchase.  you can just as easily enter your neighbor's information, or a co-worker, or someone completely random!

again, as i stated above, multi sig as it exists RIGHT NOW is not feasible for the average user to correctly wield. when the various BTC wallet clients get GUI upgrades that incorporate multi sig, it may be much much easier for them to do. in fact, it should be completely transparent to the user if it's implemented correctly.

in my hypothetical chained example, the buyer would deposit instead of to their normal SR deposit address, it would be a special address specific to that particular order, created on the fly. that multi sig address would then hold the coins in escrow until the buyer signs the transaction and releases the coins to the seller, in this case a virtual address. then, once released, SR automatically forwards the sale balance minus commission into a p2p CoinJoin transaction that eventually ends up into a vendor's withdrawal address. if done correctly there is no way for the buyer to know what that final address is, nor the vendor to know what the originating deposit came from, nor even the SR server itself!!

xoxo
-mb

Report to moderator

❤❤Premium Purveyor of a215 Roxies!!❤❤
❤❤my BMR vendor page: http://r6rcmz6lga4i5vb4.onion/index.php?p=/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/noneviewUser&id=/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/none297108
❤❤xoxo❤❤

gwern

Jr. Member

Posts: 60

Karma: +6/-3

Re: Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

« Reply #14 on: Today at 12:58:10 am »

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote from: El Presidente on Yesterday at 06:52:30 pm

However a fundamental problem with person to person transactions is that it places the onus on both parties to wash themselves of the bitcoin trail somehow. This is difficult for skilled individuals knowledgeable in the arts, for the average buyer/seller it is almost beyond reach.

Let me point out 2 basic facts here:

No blackmarket user has ever been busted in total or in part due to blockchain analysis that we know of; I can state this in considerable confidence based on the dozens of cases I have compiled in my article. Almost all criminal complaints on SR or other market users I have read either do not mention blockchain or mention that they couldn't figure it out.
Thousands of users have been burned badly by blackmarkets absconding with deposits & escrows

I hope these facts are useful for weighing the utility of multisig.

Report to moderator

http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road

Reply

Unnotify

Mark unread

Print

Pages: [1]

Silk Road Forums »

Discussion »

Silk Road Discussion »

Multi-signature Transactions & The Nature of Markets

Jump to: =/doc/darknet-market/silk-road/2/none> Silk Road Discussion

Quick Reply

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

SMF |
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines