×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Silk Road 2.0 Pledges To Compensate Users For Stolen Bitcoins

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the but-they'll-do-it-bit-by-bit dept.

Businesses 84

An anonymous reader writes "Online black market Silk Road 2.0 has pledged to pay back more than £1.7 million worth of bitcoins stolen from its servers during a heist last week. Speaking in a post on Reddit, Silk Road 2.0 moderator Defcon said the website would refund the more than 4,000 bitcoins stolen during the heist, and would not pay its staff until users had been reimbursed."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The brand is dead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275221)

At this point I think the Silk Road brand is pretty dead, especially since it's no secret that there are other similar marketplaces to be found on Tor. Not to mention that some of those are attracting a lot of former Silk Road vendors, and with the vendors come the customers.

If they make good on this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275291)

If Silk Road makes good on their promises, they will have a track record of adding some guaranty to their market and that added safety will make them a better choice than the other markets.

Re:If they make good on this. (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 10 months ago | (#46275399)

Yea, not paying your employees is *always* a good idea in situations like this.

Can ANYBODY else see how this might not be a good thing, nor is it a viable promise?

Re:If they make good on this. (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#46275461)

He didn't say they weren't accruing money. And if it's Bitcoins, well, their appreciation is driving many legitimate businesses to accept them out of pure speculation. Want $500 now or a Bitcoin next month?

Re:If they make good on this. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275523)

Want $500 now or a Bitcoin next month?

$500 now, thank you

Re:If they make good on this. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 10 months ago | (#46275635)

Yea, the rent is due when the rent is due. And it's hard to eat IOU's for bitcoin.

Re:If they make good on this. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 10 months ago | (#46276157)

Of course but, if you really need financial stability, I don't recommend being in on the ground floor of a startup. It is unlikely anyone involved, at this point, is putting all their eggs in one basket, and they would be crazy to do so. High risk atmospheres are not for people who need steady and dependable.

Re:If they make good on this. (2)

lennier (44736) | about 10 months ago | (#46281747)

Of course but, if you really need financial stability, I don't recommend being in on the ground floor of a startup.

Especially a completely illegal one based on experimental, buggy technology under ongoing cyberattack, selling products that ruin people's lives, are supplied by organised crime, and are actively targeted by high-level federal and international prosecutors with access to military espionage technology - and a complete dump of your predecessor's transaction databases.

There's high-risk, and then there's unethical high risk, and then there's completely stupid, unethical high risk, and then there's... whatever this is, it's pegging the scale.

I'm not going to say "good luck", but I would advise even the rubberneckers to stand well clear of the impact crater.

Re:If they make good on this. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 10 months ago | (#46286041)

Actually, I don't see anything the least bit unethical about selling drugs. Its the law that ruins lives and is unethical, and is the reason the drugs are supplied by organized crrime. Those international prosecutors created the problem. They put the market in the hands of organized crime, they made every situation they touched worst....and.... to top it all off, have failed to even budge the addiction rates....after trillions of dollars, millions of incarcerations, and international efforts.

And you call some people trying to help individuals sell products to eachother that they actually want and seek out....unethical. ROTFL are your priorities fucked or what?

Re:If they make good on this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46291583)

SR 1.0 involved attempts to hire hitmen. I'm pretty sure that's unethical, duderino.

I can't speak for lennier, but I largely agree with you that the War On Some Drugs is not a great idea. It's Prohibition 2.0, and we didn't learn enough from Prohibition 1.0. However, you've got some serious blinders on if you think that SR version anything is immune from behaving like gangsters trafficking illegal substances usually do. They may well have appealed to your "Drug War is bad" politics, but that doesn't imply they're good and ethical people.

You yourself talked about how drug laws merely cause drugs to be supplied by organized crime, with all the problems that this entails. Guess what? Organized crime is almost inevitably self-corrupting. Even if you posit an initial set of nonviolent, noncorrupt organized criminals who are heroes working around unjust laws, they're likely to be pushed out and replaced by violent and corrupt organized criminals. That's how organized crime usually seems to work...

Re:If they make good on this. (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 10 months ago | (#46277027)

Considering Bitcoin is trading around $300 [marketwatch.com] on at least one exchange, I'll take my $500 now, Alex.

Re:If they make good on this. (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46277975)

"http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
"Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People - Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic."

Might want to get some counseling for that. Your trolling is obvious and your public display of anti-social mental traits is unbecoming.

translation: we can't even pay the staff (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 10 months ago | (#46275711)

buh-bye

we know where from (1)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 10 months ago | (#46275229)

By Buying them on MTGox

but GOK when you'll see them ... i.e. never

Stolen by the makes of SR2 IMO

Re:we know where from (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 10 months ago | (#46277299)

When the Mt Gox collapse(s) didn't make it to /. I thought that the flood of bitcoin stories was over, but it seems that it was only the shills who were submitting the stories and only submitting positive stories.

Criminals with honour! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275251)

Now only if Bank of America or Target would do the same for it's users... isn't it funny that there's more honesty in underground markets compared to corporate capitalist America?

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275327)

B of A and Target credit cards users are protected by Visa/MC/FDIC.

And no, it's not funny. Either you are a complete moron and posting about things you don't know anything about or you're just another one of these idiotic liberals who believe everything they see on a mockumentary.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 10 months ago | (#46276231)

>B of A and Target credit cards users are protected by Visa/MC/FDIC. Define 'protected'.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 months ago | (#46276383)

Please. Anyone signing for the card can read the disclosure. They're protected far more than the people who will **assuredly** be getting their bc's back.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46278927)

They're protected far more than the people who will **assuredly** be getting their bc's back.

And strangely enough, anyone who gets their bitcoins back will still be taking a loss on it. Since the "hack" at SR2 the price of Bitcoin dropped. So someone may have had, let's say, 1.5BTC previously valued at (I'm pulling numbers out of my butt right now, but the logic holds up nonetheless) $500/BTC, meaning you had equivalent to about $750 tied up there. Now it's roughly $300/BTC, and you get your 1.5BTC back. Now the actual value of what you have is only $450.

That's a $300 loss because of market fluctuations due to what happened at SR2. That's not $300 loss because of another exchange tanking, or legislation being passed in some country. That's $300 lost directly because of the actions of the people promising to return what they lost. I wouldn't be happy about that one bit, as they have directly reduced my buying power.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46277709)

Define 'protected'.

Well, according to the Visa and MasterCard contracts you sign, you, the consumer, are not liable for fraudulent or unauthorized usage of your credit card credentials. Here's Visa's statement [visa.com] and here's MasterCard's [mastercard.us] . Just for fun, here's Discover [discover.com] and American Express's [americanexpress.com] , both of which promise zero liability if you act like a rational human being. And since 1998 [fdic.gov] the FDIC covers about $250,000 in losses [fdic.gov] relating to your bank account, including unauthorized use of your ATM card. So looking at all of those liability statements, since the data breach was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the cardholder, the cardholder is not liable for any fraudulent charges made in their name.

Furthermore if anyone steals my credit card, bank card, ATM card or card information, or if something happens to the bank, like a robbery or the bank folds (provided my bank is FDIC insured, of which nearly 7,000 banks are [fdic.gov] ): I, the consumer, am not liable. Either my credit card company knocks it off my bill (in the case of credit card fraud) or the Federal Government covers the losses up to $250,000 per bank (in the case of ATM card fraud or bank losses).

Those are all legally binding contracts in the United States. The European Union has similar systems in place, and has had deposit insurance since 1994 [europa.eu] , though that just covers the minimum coverage mandated under EU regulations (current minimums are €50,000, as of 2008, more information here [europa.eu] ). Most countries cover up to €100,000, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Slovakia (among others). The UK covers up to £85,000 in a rather complicated scheme of percentages, and the Irish government will guarantee all the money in your bank accounts [dailymail.co.uk] .

Certainly seems safer than putting your money in an escrow account controlled by a marketplace known for its illicit drug trade, and whose predecessor was taken down amidst a murder-for-hire scandal.

Re:Criminals with honour! (3, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 10 months ago | (#46275439)

Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?

What if Target claimed they'd take 100% of their profits and 100% of their payroll to pay off some debt that was bigger than a year's worth of sales? Do you figure that would be a good thing too?

BTW, Target's liability for their lapses *will* be dealt with. End users will NOT be held accountable for charges they didn't authorize. One of the few protections of Credit Cards.

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#46275883)

Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?

And you actually think SilkRoad 2 is going to stay in operation?

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 months ago | (#46276403)

Quite a leap. I'd say he/she doesn't, considering the poster was throwing a big, sticky mass of sarcasm at what *they* said they'd do to stay afloat.

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276637)

Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?

I'm surprised that they claim to have any employees in the first place. I can't take more than one person to run that site.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46277941)

The whole thing is totally ludicrous, so why not? Their entire business model is built on doing illegal things. It is not like Target. It is different, and your comparison is silly. SR cannot possibly many employees, due to the simple nature of the business and the extreme need of trust. It is perfectly possible for these guys to all agree that this is the correct course of action.

If they pull it off, it is a brand-building exercise like no other.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 10 months ago | (#46278329)

Even thieves and con-men figure on getting paid, or they will move on to more profitable targets. Any SR employees who don't get paid, legal or not are going to leave. Now if that amounts to zero total, then the promise is worthless and the sole operator of the site will eventually get tired of working for nothing because they are WAY in the hole for a one man show.

So if they manage to build their brand though deceptions like this, so be it. "There's a sucker born every minute" as the saying goes. I'm just glad I didn't loose anything though them because you are NOT going to get it back.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46278589)

You are making an assumption that the operators of SR2 are con men and thieves. You assume this because they are engaging in the underground economy. Nevertheless, that is not necessarily the case (although it has been the case for several marketplaces in the past). There are a fair number of people in the world of Bitcoin who are attempting to build an economy that does not depend on government. Are the SR2 operators in it for the con, or are they in it for the future? I don't know, but I definitely do not want to make any assumptions about the matter.

Frankly, if they begin paying back the bitcoins that were were stolen, then I think that goes a long way to towards showing that they are not thieves.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 10 months ago | (#46278867)

You are making an assumption that the operators of SR2 are con men and thieves.

And Al Capone was just a misunderstood Chicago business man who was a benefactor in his community. Seriously? What Business is Silk Road in? LOL

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46280801)

Both are side effects of a greater evil. Solve the greater evil and neither Al Capone nor SR2 would exist. Portugal has shown it can be done for more than a decade. Why haven't we?

Re:Criminals with honour! (2)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46279397)

Are the SR2 operators in it for the con, or are they in it for the future?

I think they're in it for the profit, because I highly doubt they're in it for altruistic purposes. These aren't monks sitting in a monstary, eating only food they grow themselves, running the site off donated servers and bandwidth powered by solar cells and batteries. These are people living in the industrialized world, who buy groceries and pay for electricity and hardware.

Drugs are a high-margin business. If they wanted to prove the economic viability of a marketplace that exists independently of any government, then why weren't they focusing on selling the kinds of things purchased more openly and by a larger segment of the population, like a BTC-powered Etsy or CobornsDelivers [cobornsdelivers.com] , and put it up on the open Internet where anyone could find it, instead of hiding it on the darknet?

I mean, if it was all about proving the viability of such a market, then do your proof-of-concept first, and then start pushing the point once you have some clout. If you're just in it to be a prophet of Bitcoin, then what does it matter if someone else beats you to the punch and sets up their own marketplace of illicit goods?

Besides, the story seems flakey. There have been allegations that this was an inside job from the beginning [deepdotweb.com] , where they first claim to have been robbed as a result of transaction malleability, and yet there's a lot of controversy over whether or not transaction malleability can even be exploited at this scale [reddit.com] . There's certainly a lot of theory that points to these guys not being entirely on the level, but they sure aren't altruists.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46280787)

They could be in it for both profit and altruism. Lots of organizations in the regular economy work this way. People who love their work often are able to combine service and profit. "Make money doing what you love."

I think the bulk of your argument is perfectly sound, but I think you are drawing a false dichotomy.

If they were in it purely for the money, they would walk away and never look back, like some of the other darknet markets have done. Instead they appear to be rebuilding. That doesn't really fit with a pure profit motive. There is nothing stopping them from walking away and setting up a new site with a new brand and a clean reputation. It would be a lot less work than repaying 4,000 bitcoin...

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46281383)

> There is nothing stopping them from walking away and setting up a new site with a new brand and a clean reputation.

There is, the fact that no reputation is worse than an iffy one. These drug markets depend on trust, that's why the Silk Road was so successful, you could review merchants and establish trust. That's also why nobody has seen their volumes despite a much wider audience owning bitcoins, we don't know if it's possible to trust them yet. Pulling through something like this would go a long way to establishing that trust. Though being drug dealers I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the entire thing was staged, create the problem so you can be a hero for solving it.

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46281335)

Posting AC for obvious reasons but if they do issue a refund it could the very moment many people on the fence have been waiting for, the moment they establish trust. I know I will be buying drugs (I like trying new things not an addict) from them if they can make amends, thus cementing future profits. Giving up now would be stupid, once revenue is streaming the massive profits from illegal drug sales will dwarf missing a couple of paychecks.

Re:Criminals with honour! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46279391)

BTW, Target's liability for their lapses *will* be dealt with. End users will NOT be held accountable for charges they didn't authorize. One of the few protections of Credit Cards.

The users whose cards were charged won't be held individually accountable, but everyone who uses the credit card system will pay for it in fees. (TANSTAAFL)

If you're better at security than most people, then you're subsidizing everyone else who uses the same credit system.

Re:Criminals with honour! (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46279011)

You're saying that it's good for a company to treat its employees like slaves (because that's essentially what unpaid workers are) as long as you get your money?

Because here's the trick: Bank of America has insurance [fdic.gov] , and I'm willing to be that Target has some too. So they would never be put in a situation of making their employees suffer for their blunders.

In fact, people whose credit card and debit card information has been stolen likely will have a less stressful time getting their money back, because all they have to do is report the charges as fraudulent, and then it gets stored out between the banks and Target. I have zero liability.

Funny, suddenly corporate capitalist America seems downright responsible, and doesn't resort to abusing their employees.

RESULTS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275255)

And by not paying staff until users are reimbursed, it provides a lot of incentive for them to better protect user data and information.

If HP, AT&T, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, AMAZON and many others did the same thing, we would see a very big increase in quality.

Re:RESULTS (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about 10 months ago | (#46276295)

I know nothing really about their operations but, little bit of thinking on it. They can't be very big, for a whole host of reasons aside from not needing to be. Their "Employees" are likely all part owners, with a stake in making it work. This would not be unusual in a company comprised of only a handful of people. It is a mistake to assume they have employees like a larger company would. They might, but, I think it is unlikely.

Re:RESULTS (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#46279155)

Or it's one last grab to get more bitcoins before taking off with them all again.

DF? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275295)

Those crooked mother fuckers "I mean that in a good way" have more morals than the majority of legal companies.

Re:DF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275405)

In Spain if you try to save somebody's life, you might go to jail. Law and moral are not necessarily the same thing.

Why is there so much space on the sides?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275321)

It makes me have to scroll more to see comments, this new site is terrible. :(

Re:Why is there so much space on the sides?? (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#46275449)

Someone doesn't like BETA??!?1? Why haven't I heard of this before?

Re:Why is there so much space on the sides?? (1, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#46275549)

Don't worry. He's just not part of the audience.

In other news (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 10 months ago | (#46275361)

Silk Road 2.0 employees desert after they learn they are not getting paid.
Several turn turn over information to law enforcement...

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275647)

Silk Road 2.0 employees desert after they learn they are not getting paid.
Several turn turn over information to law enforcement...

How ignorant of you to think that the purveyors of that particular road would only accept payment in the form of cash or bitcoin.

There are plenty of cannabis dispensary workers in Colorado and Washington right now that likely get paid in a different form of green.

Re:In other news (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46278513)

How ignorant of you to think that the purveyors of that particular road would only accept payment in the form of cash or bitcoin.

There are plenty of cannabis dispensary workers in Colorado and Washington right now that likely get paid in a different form of green.

How is that even relevant? From what I understand The Silk Road (and 2.0, and Utopia, and other like sites) was more like eBay, with various vendors hawking their wares, than the dispensaries anywhere in the US. And even if it wasn't, it's not like this different green is free, either. They'd be taking a loss somewhere, and chances are that it wouldn't be sustainable. I mean, they can't not sell things and expect to raise money to repay what they owe. They'd be giving away profit to employees.

And from what I'm hearing, dispensaries are paying their employees in actual money, not goods in trade. They're too closely scrutinized to try and get away with treating their employees like slaves, and it doesn't matter how much their employees might like to smoke: they still have to pay bills and buy food, and I highly doubt they're going to do an end-run-around their employers and sell the stuff on the black market.

Same story for Silk Road employees. Landlords don't take drugs in lieu of rent money.

Re:In other news (1)

tiny69 (34486) | about 10 months ago | (#46275923)

In other news, Silk Road 2.0 is being run by the FBI...

Re: In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275943)

⦠would not pay its staff until users had been reimbursed.

Silk Road 2.0 sounds like a government-financed honeypot to me.

Re: In other news (1)

Chas (5144) | about 10 months ago | (#46276071)

Yeah. Probably.

The government doesn't even have to actually bust that many people. It simply has to create a FUD field and the problem eventually takes care of itself.

Re: In other news (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 10 months ago | (#46279027)

Doesn't even have to be. The government runs most of the large TOR nodes and is doing traffic analysis. It's been known for years that someone with deep pockets was running large TOR nodes. It was an open secret that it was the feds, now it's just a known fact.

Anybody repeatedly, regularly using TOR is the NSA's bitch.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275445)

Basically they are doing more than a bank would do...(banks only return a limit amount unless you are paying for platinum type accounts)

Re:So... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 months ago | (#46276461)

Bullshit. How about you make a meager attempt to support your accusation?

Re:So... (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46278705)

Basically they are doing more than a bank would do...(banks only return a limit amount unless you are paying for platinum type accounts)

Nnnooooooo.... banks are typically insured for FDIC, which all deposits up to $250,000 [fdic.gov] . In the case of a credit union, NCUA also covers up to $250,000 [mycreditunion.gov] . That keeps your money safe if someone steals your debit card information, robs the bank, or if the bank collapses. It's insurance: the insurer pays out. The bank doesn't have to do a thing.

Now if you're putting more than $250,000 into a single account under a single ownership category, that's your own fault for not doing due diligence and taking appropriate steps to insure your money. Through different types of accounts you can set aside $1.5 million under FDIC protection. You can get private deposit insurance in many areas, like the Depositors Insurance Fund in Massachusetts [difxs.com] . That's the kind of thing you would talk to a weather management adviser about, and if you're socking away more than $1.5m, something tells me you can afford (and probably can't afford not) to hire an adviser to protect that money and cover any associated expenses.

This is all publicly available information. It's not like these $250,000 limits on FDIC/NCUA coverage is done in some kind of fine-print method meant to swindle people out of their hard earned cash. Hell, I don't even have to lift a finger if something happens to my deposits at my credit union. I just get my money back. The rest is between the credit union and NCUA.

Better service than any legit company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275539)

Can you imagine if the airlines had service like this? Goes a long, long way toward building trust and earning repeat business. Don't care what you are selling, this is how to sell it.

Re:Better service than any legit company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276145)

Especially the "would not pay its staff until users had been reimbursed" part.

It'd be great if only a few most loyal pilots remained to fly all the planes, while everyone else fleed taking whatever can be sold as a compensation for unpaid time. Customer databases could hold quite a value these days, for example.

"Trust", indeed - a black market just told you they are going to give their employees great motivation to hold a grudge.

Re:Better service than any legit company (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46277917)

If the airline employees were on board with it, then there would be no problem.

Re:Better service than any legit company (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46278799)

If the airline employees were on board with it, then there would be no problem.

Yeah, but why would they? It's not the mechanics' fault, or the fight attendants' fault. It's not the fault of the people throwing bags into the bellies of the plane. It's not the fault of the people processing the tickets, or the engineers maintaining the website. Why would they feel like they have to suffer because of someone else's mistakes? They have to eat, they have to pay their own debts, they have to coverall their own expenses too (like rent, electricity, phone, etc). They're not going to get back-pay, are they? And in reality, that would never happen. Except under certain exemptions that would be illegal under federal law of the United States [dol.gov] . And it would be a PR nightmare. Employees would quit, quality of service would suffer, and the company would collapse.

Throughout the years, though, airlines have suffered numerous disasters, and despite the fact that they're constantly operating on the edge of bankruptcy, they've never been put in such a position. Want to guess why? Because they have insurance. They pay insurers to cover them when such things arise, so that they aren't put in the position of compromising the stability of the business (or violating the law) when things go sideways.

Re:Better service than any legit company (1)

LF11 (18760) | about 10 months ago | (#46280733)

Why would they? Because there are sometimes reasons other than money to work towards.

Many of the people who work in airlines do it for the money principally, just as in nearly every other industry. So you are correct, in this case. However, that is not necessarily the case for every company or group of people. SR2 is not an airline company, and its participants already undergo an extremely high level of risk. So their priorities are not going to be same as your average airline worker.

Re:Better service than any legit company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46281769)

UAL did this, it was an ESOP. You still got a salary but it was reduced and the difference made up in stock options. A last ditch effort to stay afloat and encourage workers to stay on. When I finally able to sell mine exchanged for real money, I got like $12 because the stock tanked. Pretty shitty for 3 years worth of pay cuts.

Silk road has staff? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 10 months ago | (#46275543)

What does a site on the dark web that lists contraband and exchanges bitcoins (two very automatic things) do with employees in the first place? Oh that's right, get them arrested! Enjoy your complementary paycheck furlough and visit from the FBI.

5% COMMISSION.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275695)

So none of ya'll actually read the entire article, where it was mentioned SR2 is adding a 5% "commission" to all transactions to cover the losses?? Not quite the same as the headline making it sound like the dough would come out of SR2's pockets...

Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46275913)

... with floating value? How will they determine the value to be returned? Value at time of loss? Value at time of reimbursement? That could get 'spensive, or legalicious.

Re:Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 10 months ago | (#46276227)

If you have 1 brand new, shiny bike and it's worth $1000 now, but after a month of use, it's only worth $500, you didn't have $1000 and you didn't have $500, you had 1 bike. If I steal your brand new, shiny bike now, while it's worth $1000, but its value decreases to $500, I didn't steal $1000 from you; nor did I steal $500 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bike.

Let's try some substitution:

If you have 1 brand new, shiny bitcoin and it's worth $370 now, but after a month of speculation, it's only worth $350, you didn't have $370 and you didn't have $350, you had 1 bitcoin. If I steal your brand new, shiny bitcoin now, while it's worth $370, but its value decreases to $350, I didn't steal $370 from you; nor did I steal $350 from you. I stole one brand new, shiny bitcoin.

Following the same logic as for the bike, it would make sense that they would simply replace the bitcoins that were stolen.

Re:Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276731)

Not a good analogy.

Bike is a vehicle. You value it mostly for its function and not for its current price. You can use it to ride even if this bike model's market price falls to $20 - it doesn't lose value to you this way.

Bitcoin is a currency/commodity. Its value is in what people are ready to pay for it.

Here, have a better bicycle analogy - you're an early bike vendor, and someone stole a wooden-wheeled bicycle from you. Time passes, and when you finally get that bike back those fancy rubber-wheeled bicycles are everywhere and now you're hard pressed to find someone who likes to feel like they're riding a jack-hammer. But, hey, you've had a wooden-wheeled bike, you have a wooden-wheeled bike - nothing lost, right?

Re:Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46278377)

Not a good analogy.

Bike is a vehicle. You value it mostly for its function and not for its current price. You can use it to ride even if this bike model's market price falls to $20 - it doesn't lose value to you this way.

Bitcoin is a currency/commodity. Its value is in what people are ready to pay for it.

Here, have a better bicycle analogy - you're an early bike vendor, and someone stole a wooden-wheeled bicycle from you. Time passes, and when you finally get that bike back those fancy rubber-wheeled bicycles are everywhere and now you're hard pressed to find someone who likes to feel like they're riding a jack-hammer. But, hey, you've had a wooden-wheeled bike, you have a wooden-wheeled bike - nothing lost, right?

A Bitcoin is a fungible asset.
If you are owed 1 BTC, than 1 BTC is payment in full for that debt.
That's one of the most trivial functions of a currency.

Re:Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 10 months ago | (#46279075)

Let's say you had money invested in a foreign currency.

Your broker goes down just as the value of the currency is crashing, leaving you unable to liquidate your position. You wouldn't have a civil case against the broker?

Re:Ain't Bitcoin a commodity? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#46279201)

Unless your broker was an illegal drug trading organisation, then you'll need to identify the people responsible before you sue.

mod W0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276279)

Is this post legal??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276413)

Freedom of speech is one thing...reporting the news too. But advertising for a criminal enterprise???

There are questions here...

Wasn't Silk Road seized by the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276535)

Or was that some other site with bitcoins?

Re:Wasn't Silk Road seized by the FBI? (1)

Kichigai Mentat (588759) | about 10 months ago | (#46278823)

This is Silk Road 2. The similarities, AFAIK, are superficial.

Silk Road is an FBI/CIA/NSA sting operation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46276859)

... and always has been. Ulbricht is either an agent or a patsy. The point is to discredit Bitcoin.

Keep pumping in the money, dum-dums. (1)

VIPERsssss (907375) | about 10 months ago | (#46277315)

If it looks like a scam, sounds like a scam, and takes money like a scam... It's probably a scam.

Re:Keep pumping in the money, dum-dums. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#46279207)

.... unless its a ponzi scheme, then the first ones to get in make a profit. Everyone else after you gets scammed.

Re:Keep pumping in the money, dum-dums. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46279593)

If it looks like a scam, sounds like a scam, and takes money like a scam... It's probably a scam.

The value of the US dollar is a scam, and there's plenty of evidence to prove that (such as those large printing presses trying to print enough to maintain the worthless value), which makes your entire argument pointless.

It also makes large-scale scams look completely legitimate by comparison here. Don't make it sound like you can get ripped off any less with any stock market. They don't call it gambling because it's all fun and games.

In the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46278753)

...it's still shitcoin. You can't trust it.

petty cash (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 10 months ago | (#46278921)

With the current crash and run on bitcoin "currency" (use that word VERY loosely), they should be able to buy back those bitcoins out of the petty cash in a few weeks.

This guy has it all figured out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46279435)

It sounds like you can make easy money by shorting bitcoins! You should go do it ASAP, and let us know how it worked out in a few weeks.

Re:This guy has it all figured out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46280461)

Easy, just have to get the timing right to do it soon after MtGox fucks up and closes again.

You know, like guys over at SR2.0 had a plenty of opportunity to do.

Why does the site hold Bitcoins in the first place (1)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 10 months ago | (#46280767)

Please forgive my ignorance, as I've never had a need to buy contraband online, but why does Silk Road hold users' Bitcoins? My understanding was that the point of Bitcoin was ostensibly to enable users to send and receive money without going through a payment processing entity. I'd assume Silk Road is acting like some sort of escrow, where a buyer has to confirm that the seller made good on their end before releasing funds, but in an "anonymous" marketplace you're just as likely to be screwed by scams on either end of a transaction. Hell, on eBay I've had my fair share of buyers who filed fraudulent chargebacks and "not as described" claims and they all ended up being covered by PayPal's seller protection or postal insurance. I can only imagine how bad things must be when you're dealing with shady types.

Re:Why does the site hold Bitcoins in the first pl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46283949)

They function like an escrow service, that way vendors can avoid revealing their identities to buyers.

The way Silk Road (and other similar marketplaces) works is like this:

  1. Vendor posts product listing
  2. Buyer places order and money (btc) is placed in escrow
  3. Vendor ships merchandise
  4. Buyer marks order as received
  5. Funds are released to vendor

Now, as a buyer you could of course choose to pretend like you didn't get your order but this will only fly for so long (and you're more easily identifiable than the vendor).

On the other side you could be a vendor who didn't ship merchandise and claimed that the buyer was trying to scam you but this also has its drawbacks, do it too often and the site admins will notice (and the original Silk Road has some issue with vendors like this, especially ones who insisted buyers release funds from escrow early). A lot of the vendors move fairly large amounts of merchandise and it would not be a major source of profit to have every 10th order or so "go missing", especially not since buyers can leave feedback on every order.

Please tell me I'm dreaming! (1)

wdhowellsr (530924) | about 10 months ago | (#46281367)

Please tell me the browser cache is screwing with me. Please tell me that my wife wants to have sex more often ( ok that isn't going to happen, I have a 12 and 15 year old) Do we really have Slashdot.org back?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?