Sorry, meant markets... As in dark markets :)
Discussion
none
zero
zilch
(although hes going to jump on and say that Robosats and Bisq are DNMs beCaUsE tHeyRE On tHE daRkNeT aNd tHEYre MaRkeTS)
it's very silly to say the term "darknet market" means something other than "a market on the darknet" just so you can ignore robosats & bisq, who face the exact same risks as other DNMs but rely on LN's privacy to avoid getting caught
it's also silly for you to ignore this DNM: http://ikduzlpwcc4khvj27rlywgic6eaxj5w3brj4uo54z2sfyj7b2hfrepyd.onion
being decentralized exchanges of basically negligible economic activity,
they absolutely do NOT face "the exact same risks"
*maybe* they could pop somebody for some minor tax evasion
but its almost completely irrelevant from an LE perspective
not to mention the jurisdictional complications,
when everyone agrees drugs are bad.
so no
absolutely not
and i have trouble believing your really think so yourself.
Paxful's ceo went to prison precisely because the feds treat p2p exchanges as unlicensed money transmitters and money launderers, which are also charges they bring against operators of drug-dealing DNMs like Alphabay:
Robosats and Bisq operate on tor so as to not get caught and go to prison, and LN helps with that, because it's tor for money
its not "Tor for money"
not until its tested and proven itself.
stop trying to sell it as production ready.
Paxful took possession of user funds.
a clearnet central point of failure with good UX and volume.
disingenuous.
again.
yeah, robotsats and bisq operators *could* become targets with more adoption.
but the cost/benefit for LE is NOT equivalent to (what the rest of the world except for you refer to as) DNMs.
Goalposts are cheap on Amazon.
he says Paxful is a DNM that got busted
and you think *I'm the one moving goal posts?
No he didn't, but it shows how subpar the current state of your reading comprehension is.
He said paxful case is a precedent on why they'd go after all p2p exchanges - which he equated to the risk profile.
Amazon.com
and its a big fucking leap
as i explained.
your "explanation" was basically "well bisq isn't very big yet so they aren't at risk"
which is, at least in my opinion, a very silly thing to say
you have to start using good privacy when you're small so that it protects you when you grow big
hence tor + LN
what is said is
the cost/benefit for LE is insufficient.
and makes it a very different thing than an *actual DNM*