
The Silk Road's Dark-Web Dream Is Dead - r721
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-silk-roads-dark-web-dream-is-dead/
======
codeshaman
Yeah, I guess, like all "countercultural" revolutions, the dark markets ran
out of steam a bit. So did Bitcoin.

But the paradigm has shifted. Dark markets are possible.

We now know a lot about the risks/benefits of such marketplaces.

What's missing is a solid technological implementation of a distributed, peer-
to-peer, trust-less marketplace. It's possible to do it, it's just not that
easy.

An even better alternative would be total drug legalization.

Personally, I think that drugs are good for society more than they are bad and
most of the "negative" effects of drugs comes from the prohibition itself.

Full legalization would create a true marketplace and the "bad" drugs would be
slowly rejected by the market. It would also allow us to openly and
professionally deal with the consequences of drug abuse, addiction, etc..

Countries like Portugal have done that (to a more or less acceptable extent)
and the results are remarkable.

Combine legal drugs with modern e-commerce technologies + reputation systems
and we've practically "solved" the drug problem. Welcome to the Brave New
world ;).

~~~
omegaham
I get legalizing drugs that don't have addiction potential, but drugs like
meth and heroin have the effect of placing a large portion of the population
under the control of their suppliers.

We found this problem very quickly with legal opioid manufacturers - in the
90s, we had very lax rules on prescription painkillers, and the results were
predictable. These companies bribed doctors into prescribing them to as many
people as possible, lobbying resulted in a refusal to look at the problem, and
now we face the fact that these pharmaceutical companies are effectively legal
drug dealers to a large portion of the population. Same thing with
overprescribing amphetamines to kids for ADHD.

Predictably, we've clamped down harshly on these drugs, and now addicts are
turning to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get. It's just a massive
clusterfuck, and it's all due to the fact that slick-talking marketers
basically said, "No, don't worry - it's just medicine. No one's going to get
addicted from this. Here's a fantastic vacation package while you think it
over!"

Addicts make good customers. They'll pay whatever you want, and they'll be
with you for life as long as you make the product easily available to them.
There's just way too much money at stake to keep companies from acting in a
predatory manner, which is why we ended up with Joe Camel and other ads aimed
at kids.

I don't like bringing up the "Won't someone please think of the children"
argument because it's usually fallacious, but the fact is that tobacco
companies have known for a long time that children are very susceptible to
advertising and very likely to sustain long-term addiction if they're hooked
early. I'm sure that the same is true for harder drugs than nicotine.

The only real question is "Is that state of affairs preferable to the current
serious problems of the War On Drugs?" I think that there should be a middle
ground. Decriminalize possession totally, go after dealers. This avoids the
typical junkies getting busted and sent to long prison terms for having a dime
bag, but it prevents regular business from hooking people by the millions.

All I can say is that if we totally legalize drugs, I'm investing heavily in
whoever's marketing heroin. One cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments
and all that.

~~~
bko
Alcohol has been socially acceptable for so long that we often forget how
harmful it is to our society, much more so than other hard drugs [0]

All these problems that you state about overprescription and users turning to
unsafe harder drugs is all due to the fact that these drugs are illegal. The
same concerns were voiced about alcohol during prohibition. Now no one treats
alcohol like a medicine and they understand it is a drug. Alcohol is a "hard
drug" by any definition as it causes dependence and can have a very negative
impact on your life. It was even more dangerous when it was illegal.

The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world. The
choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those who
choose to use drugs in jail.

[0]
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

~~~
marklgr
> The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world.
> The choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those
> who choose to use drugs in jail.

That's a legitimate way to look at it, but there are other points of view too
eg. the choice is also between a rather limited user base and widespread usage
once it becomes legal. I guess it could be argued that marijuana is already
everywhere, but what about 'stronger' stuff.

~~~
sebak
1) Do we know if it will be more widespread? Although the stronger stuff is
also illegal in the Netherlands, it's very easy to find and I don't think the
Netherlands have more drug addicts then another country (no source for this,
just my opinion how I know the country).

2) Is it a problem if it's more widespread? Some stronger stuff can be used
responsibly (for example MDMA). Just like only a small portion of alcohol
users have alcohol problems. You also got stronger stuff like heroin which is
very addictive, but then there's still common sense. Whether it's legal or
illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I don't take it because I
know it's not good for me.

~~~
marklgr
The Netherlands have quite a bit of "drug tourism", with people from across
Europe going there to party and/or bring some stuff back home--so small wonder
that it's quite easy to find pretty much anything there.

As for whether usage would get more widespread, I believe it's to be expected,
since legalization means more resellers, more legit businesses that you are
not reluctant to deal with, and a de facto approval from governement that the
stuff is clean, so less fear of poisoning.

> Whether it's legal or illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I
> don't take it because I know it's not good for me.

Not everyone got the connections, and not everyone use good judgment. That's
the whole point: to what extent can society decide what to authorize and what
to forbid.

------
INTPenis
I don't understand the reasoning of wire.

They claim the darkweb black markets are dead because apparently in their
opinion the silk road was some sort of honorable black market where buyers
could trust sellers. This is ludicrous.

An anonymous market will only ever be as good as sellers and moderators make
it. It has the obvious disadvantage of being anonymous but that's a systematic
problem when dealing with this type of darkweb.

The silk road was shutdown amidst murder conspiracy and using a brute force
method of simply swiping the laptop from under the nose of the mediocre
administrator operating it.

If anything this episode has opened the door for more disciplined and
experienced people to operate their own darkweb markets and actually get away
with doing so without having to lower themselves to the deeds of their
predecessor.

From what I can gather the root problem is not attacks against the anonymity
but rather human problems. Human admins, making human mistakes or succumbing
to human temptation. So with that in mind, it's only a matter of time before
we see proper darkweb marketplaces come into their own.

Parallels can be drawn to the world of software and media piracy, everyone
should be familiar with the rate of which piracy sites have been coming and
going the last 15 years.

------
ryanlol
Yet, the markets are bigger than ever. Volumes are skyrocketing and prices for
various substances are lower than in years (see acid).

.onion markets are far from dead.

------
bobby_9x
If Bitcoin is ever going to get used by the masses, it needs to be easier to
secure your coins. My dad can barely check his email without clicking on an
obvious phishing scam.

I can't imagine him with a Bitcoin wallet..

~~~
aianus
Most people will just use Bitcoin-enabled (and probably dollar-denominated)
bank accounts with limits on daily withdrawals, same way they use bank
accounts and debit cards instead of stuffing $40,000 in bills in their
mattress.

Fraud and theft will happen but I don't see why it would be much more of an
issue than it is in the current system of debit cards and cash.

~~~
repomies691
I guess it is up to if the customer wants the dollar-denomination. I wouldn't
want that, I would rather keep my cash tied to btc.

If the customer doesn't want to tie his wealth to btc, why would he/she want
to use bitcoin at all? The only reason I can think about is remittance, and
there the benefit is cost-saving.

~~~
aianus
> why would he/she want to use bitcoin at all

Remittances, discounts from merchants who pass on the savings vs. processing
credit cards, transactions which are considered too risky for current payment
methods (ie. buying a MacBook online with your US credit card and having it
shipped to your cousin in Romania), buying things online anonymously (porn,
VPNs, sex toys), internet gambling (which is legal in most places outside the
USA), etc.

------
rawTruthHurts
Well, it was also Wired who said "browsers were about to croak"... in the late
90's

