3 ms·

So surprising... Their approach was quite unique, though. It surprises me how hackers trust each other enough to send money without proof, especially in an env

So surprising... Their approach was quite unique, though. It surprises me how hackers trust each other enough to send money without proof, especially in an environment where you're expected not to trust anybody.

brutusborn 3y ago
The only alternative I can think of is to use escrow, which probably isn’t attractive for illegal activities and still requires trust.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  I recently read a book [0] that goes into that and how--much like biological parasitism--sometimes you have frauds upon frauds. [0] Lying for Money: How Legendary Frauds Reveal the Workings of Our World
- tracedddd 3y ago
  Escrow was pretty popular on Raidforums, high reputation forum users would not only escrow transactions directly but also do things like pseudo-publicly validate or invalidate claims by checking a sellers data or tools against their own collections (presumably the benefits of being a professional hacker escrow and seeing lots of data).
- CodesInChaos 3y ago
  You can use 2 of 3 multi-signatures to reduce trust requirements.
tracedddd 3y ago
It’s just not a lot of money in most cases. Often in the hundred to few thousand range. And there is usually a data sample, such as the schema and the first 100 rows, or a demo. Of course, those aren’t strict guarantees but it does make faking it all more difficult.
DANmode 3y ago
It's not their money.
yieldcrv 3y ago
In hacker world, the liability is distributed just like in corporations the person hacking data isn’t usually the person turning that into money, the person turning it into money isn’t the person doing identify fraud, or breaking into users bank accounts etc But whoever takes on the most liability stands to make the most money But whoever trades the liability only gets a little bit
rightbyte 3y ago
You can probably do like a thousand transactions where the first part of the database is a freebie. Almost no trust needed. I.e. pay for the first part to get the 2nd, and so on.

brutusborn 3y ago

The only alternative I can think of is to use escrow, which probably isn’t attractive for illegal activities and still requires trust.

Terr_ 3y ago
I recently read a book [0] that goes into that and how--much like biological parasitism--sometimes you have frauds upon frauds. [0] Lying for Money: How Legendary Frauds Reveal the Workings of Our World
tracedddd 3y ago
Escrow was pretty popular on Raidforums, high reputation forum users would not only escrow transactions directly but also do things like pseudo-publicly validate or invalidate claims by checking a sellers data or tools against their own collections (presumably the benefits of being a professional hacker escrow and seeing lots of data).
CodesInChaos 3y ago
You can use 2 of 3 multi-signatures to reduce trust requirements.

tracedddd 3y ago

It’s just not a lot of money in most cases. Often in the hundred to few thousand range. And there is usually a data sample, such as the schema and the first 100 rows, or a demo. Of course, those aren’t strict guarantees but it does make faking it all more difficult.

DANmode 3y ago

It's not their money.

yieldcrv 3y ago

In hacker world, the liability is distributed just like in corporations the person hacking data isn’t usually the person turning that into money, the person turning it into money isn’t the person doing identify fraud, or breaking into users bank accounts etc But whoever takes on the most liability stands to make the most money But whoever trades the liability only gets a little bit

rightbyte 3y ago

You can probably do like a thousand transactions where the first part of the database is a freebie. Almost no trust needed. I.e. pay for the first part to get the 2nd, and so on.