This is a great and important use case. Fuck sanctions
As yes, fuck everyone (like me) that isn’t allowed to get medicine from above board channels (this 1000 times more common than silly things like paying for hitmen or organs. If you are buying hitmen or organs on the Internet 99% of the time it is fake)
Most pills sold on the dark web are not genuine pharmaceuticals. Law enforcement has caught countless vendors making their own tablets with pill presses, stamping them with real drug logos, and selling them as Xanax, oxycodone, or Adderall. Some are made with raw ingredients shipped from overseas; others are mixed in makeshift labs with no quality control.
The danger is what’s inside: pills advertised as painkillers often contain fentanyl, and fake Adderall tablets have been found packed with meth. Even if a pill looks real, its contents may be wrong, too strong, or contaminated. A single counterfeit dose can be deadly.
This appears to be a sweeping statement that would be very hard to confirm or deny.
The burden of proof is on who makes the initial claim, in this case, the seller. In traditional markets the state forces pharma companies to prove their claims, but in the dark web it’s the wild west. Great way to scam people.
In traditional markets, I’m denied entry because I don’t have a prescription my doctor refuses to give to me. So idk what the benefit of traditional markets is supposed to be to anyone in the same situation.
And once you find a good seller, you can stick to them and spread the word. Obviously there are risks of scams and fake product, but this is the fault of the government barriers to traditional markets rather cryptocurrencies.
Hell, even if it wasn’t the government’s fault, it would be nature of black markets, rather than crypto currencies (the latter which is just a tool).
People on this post act if crime and black markets were invented by the schmeing Mr. John Bitcoin or something.
paying for criminal activities, like hitmen, organs, drugs
Paying for criminal activities does not necessarily only include spy movie shenanigans. Lots os banned pharmaceuticals are sold through crypto, including abortion pills and HRT hormones. I doubt we’re ever going to agree on sanctions, but hopefully we can still find a middle ground on people getting access to necessary pharmaceuticals in countries that ban them, even if it is a crime.
Though to be fair most of that is done on more stable and cheaper currencies like Montero.
You’re talking about programming control, I’m taking about macroeconomic control. Switching to crypto removes many of the levers of macroeconomic control, or it shifts the control over to exchanges, mediators (courts), miners, validators, whales, and - probably not what crypto boosters want to hear - governments, who remain the power brokers and can easily assume these roles. Moreover, if crypto boosters think banks won’t use their enormous capital, power and overall economics expertise to shift into one of these roles, they’re delusional. I feel like crypto boosters think that banks just “don’t get it”, and this is ludicrous…banks have hundreds of years of institutional economic knowledge and experience. Economics doesn’t just get invalidated by crypto.
All of this ignores the fact that crypto is highly susceptible to volatility and scamming overall. Crypto has a larger more complex attack surface at the application layer, and this makes it substantially more risky particularly as malicious technology advances in that domain and can quickly outpace the technology required to secure against it.
Look I don’t have time to point by point give my takes, however I find it very funny when volatility and scamming are brought up as if that’s not rampant in literally every economic system.
I also don’t see how a transparent ledger with programming to ensure payments complete as expected is more risky then the opaque banking system also running nearly entirely online just behind closed doors in banks is any better.
Haven’t we already learned security through obscurity is not actually security?
I will say, the corporate/banking takeover of BTC happened over a decade ago now, so agree with you there, which is why it’s now “digital gold” instead of its original stated intent of digital cash.
Cryptocurrencies have various use cases:
In most cases, they do more harm than good.
About medicine:
https://www.darkowl.com/blog-content/dark-web-pharmacy-and-illegal-px-medication-sales/
This appears to be a sweeping statement that would be very hard to confirm or deny.
Yeah this is what you have to deal with when governments prioritise profits over the people’s health. It’s just a matter of risk management.
The burden of proof is on who makes the initial claim, in this case, the seller. In traditional markets the state forces pharma companies to prove their claims, but in the dark web it’s the wild west. Great way to scam people.
In traditional markets, I’m denied entry because I don’t have a prescription my doctor refuses to give to me. So idk what the benefit of traditional markets is supposed to be to anyone in the same situation.
And once you find a good seller, you can stick to them and spread the word. Obviously there are risks of scams and fake product, but this is the fault of the government barriers to traditional markets rather cryptocurrencies.
Hell, even if it wasn’t the government’s fault, it would be nature of black markets, rather than crypto currencies (the latter which is just a tool).
People on this post act if crime and black markets were invented by the schmeing Mr. John Bitcoin or something.
Lmao that’s priceless. Sorry you gotta deal with this system. Medical care should always be free and accessible.
Paying for criminal activities does not necessarily only include spy movie shenanigans. Lots os banned pharmaceuticals are sold through crypto, including abortion pills and HRT hormones. I doubt we’re ever going to agree on sanctions, but hopefully we can still find a middle ground on people getting access to necessary pharmaceuticals in countries that ban them, even if it is a crime.
Though to be fair most of that is done on more stable and cheaper currencies like Montero.
Replace crypto with cash and all those things are true, and yet…
The point of crypto is to remove control of currency, so does it do that or not?
The point of crypto is it is controlled via programmed rules, depending on the type, which in theory would make it more fair if coded properly.
You’re talking about programming control, I’m taking about macroeconomic control. Switching to crypto removes many of the levers of macroeconomic control, or it shifts the control over to exchanges, mediators (courts), miners, validators, whales, and - probably not what crypto boosters want to hear - governments, who remain the power brokers and can easily assume these roles. Moreover, if crypto boosters think banks won’t use their enormous capital, power and overall economics expertise to shift into one of these roles, they’re delusional. I feel like crypto boosters think that banks just “don’t get it”, and this is ludicrous…banks have hundreds of years of institutional economic knowledge and experience. Economics doesn’t just get invalidated by crypto.
All of this ignores the fact that crypto is highly susceptible to volatility and scamming overall. Crypto has a larger more complex attack surface at the application layer, and this makes it substantially more risky particularly as malicious technology advances in that domain and can quickly outpace the technology required to secure against it.
Look I don’t have time to point by point give my takes, however I find it very funny when volatility and scamming are brought up as if that’s not rampant in literally every economic system.
I also don’t see how a transparent ledger with programming to ensure payments complete as expected is more risky then the opaque banking system also running nearly entirely online just behind closed doors in banks is any better.
Haven’t we already learned security through obscurity is not actually security?
I will say, the corporate/banking takeover of BTC happened over a decade ago now, so agree with you there, which is why it’s now “digital gold” instead of its original stated intent of digital cash.