The problem with the different blacklists and warning lists maintained at /r/DarkNetMarkets: One man's opinion.

Below is a post that I was about to make as a reply on another thread to do with mods shilling. After some thought, I decided it would be more valuable to the community for it to exist as its own thread. I formally ask that the mods pin this thread temporarily. For full context, the following was intended to be a reply to this https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/362ula/so_mods_dont_update_the_marketplace_list_but/crbamw4 post.

----- Begin here ------

Many of the warnings were warnings put it by old mods. We no longer knew the exact reasoning for their inclusion. We couldn't remember if there was pretty solid proof of wrongdoing or anecdotal or what (this is pseaking in generalities of all the warnings). So we decided that we would take a stab at improving this list.

I have to commend this mod for realizing and admitting the short comings of their process for building their different market and vendor warning lists. This is the first time that I've seen a mod step up like this. Kudos brother.

Well, by that rationale, b/c it happened one time, its tainted for all time. So be it. OBviously that's the way you feel and I won't change your mind wth what I say. By what you are saying, the mod positions are forever tainted by the actions of a mod. Have something specific against a particular mod, we are all ears. Otherwise, I can't do much else.

From the above quote, I believe that the individual this mod is trying to paint as unreasonable, is in fact entirely reasonable. In the infamous words of GWB, "Fool me once... ... ... you can't fool me again." The last sentence, "Otherwise I can't do much else", I strongly disagree with.

Please Mr. TheEconomist1, I'm trying to appeal to your intelligence, integrity and our common will to make this subreddit the best source for DNM information on the clearnet. The problem you're having with the warning lists is that the process (not the requirements) for adding vendors and markets is not visible to us, the general /r/DarkNetMarkets reader. There seems to be a pervasive 'trust us' attitude among the mods, which is what's causing these specific problems to do with users questioning if the mods are shills. There is just no way to know with any degree of certainty given how you guys currently operate.

Although, I believe there is good news. You can change this with very little effort. Instead of vendors and markets appearing (or disappearing) on these lists because a mod says 'trust us he is a scammer', instead keep a master list and add to it 'events'. These dated events should describe verifiable instances of some perceived wrong doing by the vendor or market in question. The 'event' should contain enough information for a regular reader to be able to go out and verify the event as true. This relieves the mods from having to take a 'trust us' position, and thereby restores your credibility by default. A summarized list of vendors/markets could be prioritized based on the number of 'events', or whatever metric you wish to pull out of the event information. You might even decide to put a weighting on different events based on severity. I hope you can see that I'm making a sensible suggestion that would help the community and the mods.

Also, let me demonstrate how your current process for managing those warning lists completely falls apart under common circumstances. Take for example the "Wall of Shame". I will compare the actions and treatment of two separate markets to illustrate my point below.

The first is really a tumbler and not a market, but exists on the "Wall of Shame", and is a very good example to the point I wish to make. Bitcoin Blender had a security failure that caused coins to be stolen. They were very forthright, honest and contrite about what had happened. They needed to close down their service to understand and patch the security holes, and they promised to pay everyone back. When they did finally come back, they did exactly that. They paid back all of their users, and we can presume that their system is more secure after them going through that experience and taking the time to fix it. The end result is that they are on the "Wall of Shame" list and not on the "Superlist", thereby killing their business. This hurts them, but it also hurts the community because we now effectively have one fewer option when it comes to tumbling services.

The second is a very popular market, which is not on the "Wall of Shame" list. Recently Agora had significant downtime. The ability to withdraw coins was suspended. They claim they were under a DDOS attack. After dealing with the problem, they came back online and both users and vendors were eventually able to withdraw coins. We can assume that they are better off now because they've learned something from this experience, and are better able to deal with DDOS attacks. The end result is that they continue to occupy the "Superlist", and not the "Wall of Shame". Their business survives, and we keep a great market as a resource.

So what's the problem you ask? If Agora, by seeing what happened to Bitcoin Blender, realized that they couldn't be honest about what really happened to them, like say a security breach that cause coins to be stolen, because they would be effectively blacklisted and their business killed, they would make the wise yet dishonest choice of claiming all their problems were due to a DDOS attack. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if Agora was breached I can guarantee you that is the story they would spin, and I wouldn't blame them for obvious reasons.

Above I've illustrated a major vulnerability in the current system for warning readers about issues with vendors/markets. If /r/DarkNetMarkets were to implement a summarized list, which linked specific vendors/markets to their own verifiable 'events', we the readers of this subreddit would have the context to better asses the risk of dealing with a particular vendor/market. This would also give the vendors/markets much less of a reason to be deceptive about mishaps in their operation. Mishaps that, if I may be so bold, are an eventuality for any group running something as sophisticated as a hidden service that's under the constant threat from LE and crooks. Some might say that there isn't much of a difference between LE and crooks, but I digress.

I say all this with the best of intension. I only want this community to get stronger and less vulnerable to some of the things we've seen in the past.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I know is a very lengthy essay of sorts. Especially in the ADD world we live in today.


Comments


[4 Points] Theeconomist1:

Hey JonJones - I appreciate your reply. Its thoughtful and you bring up good points.

From the above quote, I believe that the individual this mod is trying to paint as unreasonable, is in fact entirely reasonable. In the infamous words of GWB, "Fool me once... ... ... you can't fool me again." The last sentence, "Otherwise I can't do much else", I strongly disagree with.

I do understand where you are coming from on this, perhaps I did come across as unfair. The thing is, we get baseless accusations thrown at us constantly. Now, you are right, there were problems with a past mod who betrayed the trust of the community. I think a certain skepticism is healthy. However, I do feel it unfair to paint the current mods with the same brush as the one who actually created problems. I'm asking that we (we meaning the current mods) be judged on our merits and our actions, not the previous mod or set of mods that were problematic. These accusations get thrown around so much that it does become meaningless. Its like if you were wokring a new job at a company and the previous person who held the job did something unethical. The employee who replaced that unscrupolous person should not be judged on the actions of the past employee. My statement of "otherwise I can't do much else" wasn't intended to be a dismissal - it was more a statement that some people will not judge us (the current set of mods) on our own respective behaviors and actions but will always see anyone who occupies this job as corrupt. There are people who believe that and their opinions will never be changed. It was definietly not meant as a "fuck you" to the general community who do judge others based on their own actions. If someone wants to believe that the mods are corrupt regardless of having proof or questionable instances, they'll believe it no matter what I say. I try to let my actions speak for my ethics. I'd like to believe that my ethics is impeachable.

The problem you're having with the warning lists is that the process (not the requirements) for adding vendors and markets is not visible to us, the general /r/DarkNetMarkets reader.

Okay, this is is a good point. Sometiems we forget what we know vs. what the average DNM community member knows. It is not our intention to make things opaque or not understandable to the average community member. We will work on doing a better job on transparency. We strive for transparency and I guess we have failed in this area.

I only want this community to get stronger and less vulnerable to some of the things we've seen in the past.

Me too!

I think you hit on some important key points on what made our various lists unhelpful. A few of the mods are tasked with proposing different ways we can implement the warning, watch and super market lists. COntext has long been a problem with the warning list. What does it mean if someone makes the warning list?? Nothing to the casual user. I think there are clear cut, black and white instances where a warning is obviously needed. This is easy. But most will fall in a gray area and we won't know what the "truth" of the matter is. I think what's helpful is what you hint at - to give a background of why a market is on a warning list. I think maybe in these cases, we (the mods) shouldn't proclaim a market or service to be unsafe for certain but to make readily available some concerns and let the reader interpret what that means and judge whether its safe or not. There is always a lot of misdirection and misleading information. I think our role is to make this information available and let the reader decide on their own. Like I said, there are some instances where a warning is a no-brainer and clear cut, but most will fall on a judgement call.

So we can play is cautious and not put a market on a warning list. This can put our members at risk and vulnerable if the market is actually problematic. On the flip side, if we put markets on the list at the first sign of trouble, verified or not, we potentially hurt a good market that isn't actually problematic. I htink the right answer falls in providing an easy and accesible way to present the information to the member and let them understand what's going on and make a decision for themselves. Hopefully this makes sense.

I think though whatever the end result is with the warning list that the process be transparent and understandable to everyone in the community. This is the most crucial element. It is not our intention to hide things or make things seem mysterious.

Thanks for your thoughts and input. I do appreciate you came forward as rational and calm. We can disagree (although I think we've mostly agreed) and be respectful of one another (as a general rule in the community, this isn't at all directed at you). This is how shit gets done.


[3 Points] MLP_is_my_OPSEC:

I don't think the thread can be pinned, as the Sell Your Shit Sunday thread is up, and the Moronic Monday thread after that. The system is getting reworked, that's for certain. I believe that's my current project. I've already some idea about how I want to do this, but any input is greatly appreciated, so here are my thoughts and lets get some ideas flowing.


Having a Market Warning List is a bad idea. As it's been seen, users will shout SHILL no matter if the list is there or not. What should be done is the warnings should be merged with the Superlist, and clarify that they're just warnings, and the final decision should be up to the user. We don't want to make decisions for them, just guide them into making a decision that fits their needs. Doing this without coming across as a shill is difficult, yes, but it can be done.

Before a warning is added, a thread would be created. The reason for the warning will be in the OP, and discussion would take place in the comments. Proof/evidence should be a must, any FUD not tolerated. Put the warning on the Superlist under said market with a link to the discussion thread.

Warnings are to never be removed. Just because a market admin fixed a security issue doesn't mean they get away with it. If the issue was fixed and proven to be fixed then that can be clarified by that specific warning, but never removed.


[1 Points] u3565572:

Sock puppets could easily manipulate lists.