Slashdot Mirror


Head of Silk Road 2.0 Says It Will Be Back In Minutes If Shut Down

Daniel_Stuckey writes "It only took a month for the Silk Road 2.0 to go live after the now infamous Silk Road marketplace shuttered. One month. Should the budding deep-web bazaar experience the same fate as its predecessor, and be knocked out by authorities still whack-a-moling their way through the online front of the war on drugs, the Silk Road 3.0 would be up and running in 15 minutes, tops. That's according to the Dread Pirate Roberts, the pseudonymous head of SR 2.0. In what are arguably his most breathy public remarks to date the 'new' DPR, who either cribbed his handle from the DPR of SR 1.0 fame or who is indeed the original DPR, opened up to Mike Power on his long-term vision for the site."

33 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Silk Road down? by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

    I for one, welcome the new Dread Pirate Roberts.

    1. Re:Silk Road down? by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was intentional, the choice of "Dread Pirate Roberts" for a handle was truly inspired. There will always be a black market underlying any economy, and I'm betting there will be an internet version of one going forward. While I wouldn't try to predict what it will look like, I have a suspicion that it will be called Silk Road for quite some time, one way or another.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Silk Road down? by Soluzar · · Score: 2

      That was my first thought too. If they had this in mind, the choice of handle was really, really impressive.

    3. Re:Silk Road down? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's s Honey Pot.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Silk Road down? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It is not. Entrapment would be if the police went to someone and said," I really want you to sell me some drugs and then convinced them to do so". Just saying "hey do you have any drugs to buy" is not. Trapping people is perfectly legal. Convincing them to break the law is not.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Silk Road down? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Bother," said Pooh as he was read his Miranda Rights.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. Dread Pirate Roberts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'll you know the last Dread Pirate Roberts wasn't the original Dread Pirate Roberts anyway. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Patagonia.

    1. Re:Dread Pirate Roberts by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      No, not at all.

      I know this is shocking to the mom-discovers-one-sneaky-trick crowd, but police can legally lie to you and misrepresent themselves! They also don't have to tell you they're cops, no matter how many times you ask.

      What they cannot legally do is convince someone who is otherwise lawful to break the law. They can provide opportunities, but they can't legally force or coerce the person to break the law. That's entrapment. Running a fake drug operation isn't.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  3. Re:really by Xicor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it, and they have nothing to show for it. each year prison overcrowding increases because they fill up the prisons with ppl who smoked weed. meanwhile they are letting rapists and murderers go free because they cant fit all the weed smokers in prison.

  4. Re:really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah. Well you are going to hell, druggie.

  5. Missing the point by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having a working web site doesn't accomplish anything if nobody uses it, for fear of going to jail.

    Silk Road 1.0 didn't just get shut down. The Feds had complete access to it for months. If you use Silk Road 2.0 and end up in jail, it's your own fault.

    1. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you take the proper precautions, then it doesn't matter if they have access to it. It's through tor, so they don't have your IP. Use a completely new username and password for your account that you haven't ever used before. Encrypt any communication with the seller/buyer, such as the shipping address or tracking number, with GPG. That way only the seller/buyer see each other.

      Access the site through a secure machine (Tails LiveCD or a VM setup like Whonix) so that even if the browser is compromised with a 0-day, no identifying information can be obtained. Whonix is great in that the Workstation VM doesn't have a non-torified NIC, so it's impossible to leak your real IP. Restore to a snapshot after every use so any exploits are non-persistent.

      As a risk for the buyer, sure, the seller could be the feds, but it's unlikely (they usually go after the sellers, not the buyers). Use a fake name if your mail carrier will deliver it (many in bigger cities will). Or use a friend's address with a fake name. It's not a crime to receive things you didn't order, you can't control who sends things to your address. If you're ordering personal use sized quantities, it's not worth the trouble to setup a sting anyway.

      The risk for the seller is pretty low as well, since they never give up identifying information period. Now if the feds want to devote a lot of resources to a single seller, they could do that and do test purchases and slowly trace down the origin and physically watch the location where the packages are being mailed from, then follow the person home. But again, that's pretty unlikely unless the seller is one of the large ones and is based in the US, and even then I feel like they wouldn't bother since the seller is pretty low level in the grand scheme of things and the resources are better spent going after someone higher up or lower hanging fruit.

      As for tracing the bitcoins, use one of the tumbling services. It looks like these marketplaces tumble the coins anyway, but that won't help if the whole site is compromised. Or buy/sell bitcoins with cash (localbitcoins.com), either in person or using the greendot refills (then take the cash out at an ATM without a camera... many of the non-bank owned ATMs don't have a camera).

      So if you're smart about it and take the proper precautions, it's pretty safe and the risk of being caught is very very low.

    2. Re:Missing the point by casings · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Quite a bold statement that has no real basis in reality:

      http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/high-iq-linked-to-drug-use/

    3. Re:Missing the point by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      It would be pretty easy to MITM GPG encryption for anyone with control of the site. Simply display FBI or DEA controlled public keys for all sellers when logged in as anyone but the seller, the TLA agency then reads and forwards the message re-encrypted under the dealer's actual GPG key. The dealer never notices a problem unless they log in as someone else and review their own key. Whether this would work or not depends on the diligence of drug dealers.

    4. Re:Missing the point by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 2
      All of the points you identify are in relation to the problems caused to drug users by drug laws , not by drug use. Historically, intelligent people have often been willing to contradict the law and status quo in order to do things that they feel that they should be able to do.

      Many of the same risks you identify applied to intelligent people across history who have engaged in seemingly "self-destructive" behaviors in order to further beliefs they believed were right: Galileo (loss of money/reduced opportunity/legal risks destroy your career/excommunication/health risks of torture like strappado), Marin Luther King (risks to him legally like his frequent jailings and to his life like his assassination), Ghandi (much of the same, health risks of hunger strikes etc).

      Not to say that your average drug user is accomplishing good at the level that these folks were (or even at all), but something has to be said for intelligent people being people of conviction. Regardless of consequences, intelligent and historically admirable people were often steadfast in their beliefs. Some might have labelled Galileo's behavior as self-destructive, bound to get him locked up or in trouble and not worthwhile -- but centuries later we see the value.

    5. Re:Missing the point by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Buyers are at significantly less risk, but without sellers the site isn't going to function.

      Where there is money to be made, there will be people willing to take the risk.

      Also worth noting that the buyers seem to be taking a bigger risk. Sellers can get paid in bitcoin and drop the package in a corner mailbox, and should be able to stay fairly anonymous if they do it right. Buyers need to provide an address for delivery.

  6. Dread Pirate Roberts is a very appropriate name by Agent0013 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that keeping the name Dread Pirate Roberts is very appropriate to the movie it came from.

    Dread Pirate Roberts:

    Roberts had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He took me to his cabin and he told me his secret. 'I am not the Dread Pirate Roberts' he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the ship from the previous Dread Pirate Roberts, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Dread Pirate Roberts either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.'

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  7. Re:really by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative
    No. Each occupied prison place costs. Prison inmates are mainly unproductive, and if they do work, then it's mainly work where you not need any high education, and where you don't have any real responsibility, so the jobs are relatively low paying ones. Thus prison inmates mainly cost money. They have to be feed, they have to be medically threated, they have to be watched around the clock etc.pp.

    The only people who earn money on prison inmates are prison operators who charge the government for each inmate they take.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  8. Re:priorities by intermodal · · Score: 2

    I agree that leaving children hungry is a disgrace, but I'm not sure comparing these two things actually accomplishes anything. Putting people in jail over a plant is a disgrace without need for qualifications and comparisons.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. Re:really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You need to brush up on your history... Prohibition needed an amendment to repeal because it was an amendment that put it in place. The 18th amendment started prohibition and the 21st repealed it.

  10. Re:Amazon AWS by Mullen · · Score: 2

    (I wish Amazon hadn't called it AWS. It's not recognizable enough without spelling out Amazon, and you end up effectively writing Amazon Amazon Web Services or people don't know what you're talking about.)

    I always call it EC2, and more or less, everyone in the computing business knows what that is.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  11. Re:really by sjames · · Score: 2

    You might be surprised to know that there is a such thing as a left libertarian.

    That and that in the U.S. the right seems to be more hard line on drugs than the left(ish).

  12. Re:really by gander666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whoa, that escalated quickly.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
  13. Re:priorities by intermodal · · Score: 2

    it says even more that putting people in jail for a plant is a priority at all. Comparing it to a legitimate concern is less useful, as it implies it even deserves to be on the prioritization lists in the first place.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  14. Re:really by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, what we need is full legalization. The two most addictive and dangerous drugs known to man are currently available at almost every gas station in the country. It's a policy that works, and every other drug should be treated the same way.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. Re:really by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Informative

    It costs taxpayers and society in general, but hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and cartel members make their living off it, and politicians can harvest donations and votes from them.

  16. Re:really by ragefan · · Score: 2

    Then clearly the answer is to make your own Pot stamps. The government would then be unable to prove that the ones you made are counterfeit as they could not provide "approved" Pot stamps to compare them against.

  17. Re:really by gtall · · Score: 2

    Please try to keep up. There a growing movement among the judiciary and state elected officials to reduce the prison pop. especially for non-violent drug offenders. Even that hero of the right, Richard Viguerie is behind the effort. Some are on board for the usual liberal causes, some are on board because it is expensive keeping people locked up.
     

  18. Re:really by toastar · · Score: 2

    But without the drug war what excuse would you use to lock up all those undesirables?

  19. Re:Goverment? So what. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    There's this agency called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They handled cases where drugs cross state lines. I understand why you might not have heard of them, since they were only created 105 years ago.

  20. I'm a Left Libertarian by turp182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a left libertarian. Here are some of my views.

    For social. Society should, at a minimum, provide the poor and homeless with the level of care that prisoner's receive. Maybe prisoner's should receive less care, so be it. But at least respect the unfortunate, they suffer. Obviously our drug enforcement culture needs to end.

    For politics. Possibly only use public funds for political campaigns. How would it work? I have no idea. But prevent, 100%, campaign donations from companies and dissolve all PACs. They are poison to the system. Possibly use a different Federal level voting system, we need more parties in contention badly. Make lobbying illegal, if a business wants to talk directly to a government official, that's fine, but no external parties being funded. Enact a balanced budget amendment (goodbye Military Industrial Complex, but so be it).

    For business. Reform the patent system (how? I'm not sure, there are others that know more than I, but I can spot a failed/failing system). Gut the Fed. Reduce "barriers to entry", gut Sarbanes-Oxley and other "established business benefit programs".

    For legal. Reform the entire thing, businesses control the system to their whims. RIAA, MPAA, you are who I'm referring to, at least to start with.

    For security. Gut it all. Restore the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. NSA and TSA need to be shuttered, as good first steps.

    "I have a dream" (TM, Martin Luther King Jr.), but I have little to no optimism regarding true progress under the current system. We have one national party split into two sects, divided primarily by social values. Reality is a voracious destroyer of dreams. I get by.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  21. Re:can we say sting op by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

    and this doesn't scream Sting or front to anyone?. not to mention its just a bad idea in the first place

    Dream of the Blue Turtles, or are we going back to Message in a Bottle?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  22. Re:A new Silk Road? by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 2
    The market capitalization of Bitcoin is far too large at this point for any Silk Road or darkweb market to play a considerable role in its value: nearly $4.1 billion as of this writing.

    Most of the increase in value has been attributed to the adoption of Bitcoin in China as well as fears in Europe over quantitative easing of the Euro.

    This caused Bitcoin to spike nearly 4x in value before coming down slightly by $50 yesterday. This is typical of a market "correction" when a security has become overvalued.

    I think the chances of a correlation to any individual entity or market at this point are minimal. At most any type of darkweb site is dealing with a few millions of dollars in Bitcion, which is pocket change in the realm of $4.1 billion market cap.