A Proposal For Test4Pay : Test4Pay | Torhoo darknet markets Torhoo!

/u/TTTz

4 points

1 year ago*

【T】【E】【S】【T】❹【P】【A】【Y】

🇨🇦 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 🇺🇸

/u/BadFishBad

5 points

1 year ago

Damn /u/TTTz, your formatting gets me hard. Teach me, master. Please.
Also, great proposal /u/Paris

/u/2000Red

2 points

1 year ago

How? Good job!

/u/TTTz

3 points

1 year ago

Thank you - /d/Code_Practice

/u/2000Red

1 points

1 year ago

That is lots of practice (love) it!

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

The problem is if he keeps practicing at this rate it's going to look like this ╰⋃╯ soon and then he'll never get a GF.

If someone would please implement the Unicode Hieroglyphics set we could have better dicks.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

✧GͥOͣDͫ✧ ℋเ℘℘ყ☮👁️⃤ 📐 🏄️ 𝓢µ૨ƒε૨ ✧GͥOͣDͫ✧

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

2 points

1 year ago*

I think the proposal you've suggested is great /u/paris and solves a big issue that arose from the setup of T4P and steve's arrest. transparency and decentralisation of payments would be the ultimate goal imo - getting there might take some time and a transition period though.

i'm not sure i fully understand the rationale of the 'random' aspect of the user being prompted. considering the uptake of testing generally fell on a select group of interested parties on the old format of T4P. adding a random element would significantly hinder those that want to be more regularly involved in testing from being compensated. I assume you added this in to the proposal in order to mitigate nefarious vendors from testing their own or competitors products. i'm not sold that this would resolve the issue as where there is a will, there is a way. i think that T4P showed that the carrot worked better than the stick to generate that community engagement anyhow. maybe it makes more sense for a service like this to run independently of a community based T4P. it does sounds rather desnakeesque though - which i think worked quite well - but again the centralised model he had kind of had the same end result with Steve and T4P. your proposed model definitely mitigates that issue if you have enough buy in from markets. /d/thecouncil doesn't really even have full buy in from all the superlist markets which in itself is designed for both harm reduction and scam reduction

i believe one of the great strengths of T4P was it's community aspect. unfortunately i think an element of that might be somewhat lost with tying the payments to markets. i also loved the way that community reagent testing was encouraged/funded. losing this side of the project would be a significant loss. i'm not exactly sure how to solve this issue, as i think that was the symptomatic beauty of the funding coming from centralised dark money.

being that the aussie community became the MVP testing ground of Test4Pay, i (and a number of the /d/DarknetAustralia regulars) have been pretty actively involved from the get go. i would be happy to be more involved in future iterations if needed :)

i went in to a bit of detail in a message to the /d/Test4Pay modmail.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I do agree that the community is powerful here. I just fear that people who for instance would be ' verified testers' can abuse that power or be susceptipble to bribes from vendors or what not.

If the random part doesnt damp the effect or the duration too long it should be good. But i do think the community can decide who is apt for doing the tests and who can be trusted. ALways there will be 1 2 rotten apples. But if 98 out the hundred do it right, then i think that is already a major step forwarrd.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago

at scale its pretty easy to weed out people trying to game the system because the 'power' of a few testers is mitigated. people being able to research the testers DN personas and compare any 'odd' patterns is what helped T4P get going imo. the random part will definitely dampen the uptake. any new project needs early adopters to champion it in order to scale. you can have the best system in place to keep any nefarious actions from taking place, but if the UI has too many touch points, or the UX isn't geared to the user then uptake can be next to 0. unfortunately this process of testing isn't just about what happens here in the DN - there is a real world element that people have to interact with and it can be a big hurdle to overcome for most. most of your 'real' testers are going to be a wide array of drug takers - and some DOC's are more conducive to taking them without bothering to take out a sample and send it to a lab - being paid for it or not.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago*

Sorry for my lack of time and a proper response, you also seem to have thought out this idea and have a good understanding. We are frmo BEnelux as a vendor. We have luxury that government lets anyone for free test samples in a professional public government lab anonymously. We take this for granted. The rest of the world does not have this. Such a shame that it takes heroes like Paris and others to do this instead of the fucking government doing their jobs to respect peoples right and atleast take care of the people pfff.

Anyway drifing off. I do see alot of pragmatical problems with the rdm part. Random within a certain group sure. But i may have not read all paris his replies yet proper. For me this is the first time i start thinking about it , because i takei t for granted that we can do that. And depending on how random we taking about this gonna slow down or dampen i feel also. The will gonna be lacking. I mean: why do we tax people for the public goods ? Because in the end if they dont do that everyone will make use of it without contributing. In short: in a data sense relying on rdm is totally cool. Im worried about pragmatical problems wit hthis like you adressed, people gonna be confused , not know ecactly what to do. Dont want be a real douche here: btu people are pretty retarded. I mean , you know how many vendors actually have there private keys stored on their accounts ? And how many customers plaintext me their adress (which is hot for me and them)?

Thus my reluctance to trust on the random person. But it cant be too elitist also and a system of checks and balances + transparancy, Sounds ez, very hard. But i think this discussion is making HUGE steps and Paris has provided, in its core , a very nice concept.

As with any projects rimples often also wrinke out in practice. There is def more then 1 way to Rome here. The most balanced road most likely the most pragmatic and doable + efficient to the cost. No road is PERFECT. Or it will suffer from extreme ineffiency.

Thanks for your interesting reads brother. Criticism is neutral and constructive.

DS

/u/TimothyWeary2023

1 points

1 year ago

"you know how many vendors actually have there private keys stored on their accounts ? And how many customers plaintext me their address (which is hot for me and them)? "

I'm surprised most markets didn't follow WHM's example and detect when plain text instead of a PGP message was put in the order notes and refuse to let it be submitted. Shouldn't be to hard to program in.

You can't make stupid people smarter, but you can try and help protect them from themselves.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Or you can remove all the safety labeling and let the problem sort itself out.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

This is very true. I can not disagree. Some people have no regard for OPSEC. WHich is rly annoying cuz their heat radiates to the vendor also... :(

/u/TimothyWeary2023

1 points

1 year ago

They'd get found out eventually, I believe. For example, if they report a product fent free while others are saying the opposite, and it happens in multiple cases, ban hammer.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Let the banhammer strike in those cases as the hammer of Thor with a force of lightning from the sky ! No second chances.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

It's easy to do random spot checks on tests that have been done. If you checked one in ten it would be unlikely a Vendor would risk a lifetime ban to get a better result. Make it one in five get checked and the chances go to near zero.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

True,

But you never know where a vendor is tommorow. See nit so many times. They get fucked 1 time or smthng or sometimes just dont do due diligince and they dont even know they have crap but think its good. I do agree numbers will win at the end of the day. Never ever be too trusting though to vendors.

Regards,

DS

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

And I forgot to get back to you. I'll do so today !

/u/Paris 📢 A

0 points

1 year ago

Fantastic feedback. The idea of the random element being on the market is designed to mitigate nefarious vendors from submitting invalid results. It puts a cost that a regular user would need to accept anyway vs one that a vendor wouldn't have needed to accept at all. It's not perfect but by providing a cost it solves a lot of the manipulation problems.

While it would make it more likely that people who would test wouldn't be prompted, the idea is just to wave the incentive around in people's faces who wouldn't have considered it in the first place. I bet most would be surprised to learn they can get paid to test their stuff. A more "you have been selected to participate in this important program" I think would make some people more inclined to doing it. Markets can also just flag some accounts as testers in the background to make it so all orders on their accounts will get the prompt too. There are ways that this "random" selection is a lot less random. The incentives for the market are still in place to identify bad vendors and weed them out so how they choose with selection is still going to be fine if it's flexible. Assuming the cost is still there that is.

Core repo owners can also choose to accept other submissions. But I would urge them not to do so if the verification of where the drugs came from isn't from a third party source. This program doesn't need to be confided in the exact rules I have outlined if they find the other methods may have the project move even further on. I just want to provide the groundwork so it has a strong foundation.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago*

While it would make it more likely that people who would test wouldn't be prompted, the idea is just to wave the incentive around in people's faces who wouldn't have considered it in the first place. I bet most would be surprised to learn they can get paid to test their stuff.

makes sense from a 'marketing' avenue. in that case, i think running an 'opt in' option in parallel to the 'random' and finding a way to clearly highlight to the community in the reviews/test results themselves which is which would cover both bases.

i had some critique around a similar issue to Steve et al with their in house vs community testing. having the differentiation CLEARLY highlighted to the community can serve to push interpretation of testing results to those viewing rather than simply becoming a 'source of truth'. becoming an unquestioned source of truth can become a dangerous thing in this domain and is one of the reasons i was often critical of the way results were presented, and highlighted the potential 'attack vectors' nefarious types might use with T4P in the past.

well done on the community engagement on the subject here. it is either going to aid to synthesise a fantastic model... or muddy the waters. hopefully the former haha.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

I promise I'll start using interpretive emoji codes so those as home can differentiate.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

You may be right. People might unduly assume that a submission is absolutely trustworthy if the only way for submission results are through the random process. But it's not ideal. Transparency is a key thing this design needs to provide. My concerns stem from the fact that the more the system scales the more likely it is that a vendor and or market will try to game the system. I personally don't think it could be ever perfect. If we allow for everyone to test if they want, it's easy for the system to start to crumble under the pressure of the increased load. There are only so many donations to fund the tests and if people test but can't be payed out that may rub some people the wrong way.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

2 points

1 year ago*

the more i've thought about it. i don't think i agree with the proposal. i'm not sure that this isn't all necessarily just over engineering of the process. i really do think the T4Pay model worked well and don't believe much is needed to be changed process wise or operationally.

There were also issues with accessibility and sample sizes on the tests to provide reliable results to the community (free from vendor interference).

the testing, payout and verification model itself worked pretty well. I don't think there was too much of an issue around the system being 'gamed' on a large scale(besides the potential 'in-house' testing by a DN vendor running the whole operation).

but the obvious 2 issues that now have eventuated are:
1. where to get a pool of funding that is transparent and not just from 1 vendor/source.
2. how to mange that pool of funds to mitigate any issues arising from 1 controlling party going missing or being tempted to take the funds.

i think issue 1 has the potential of being resolved pretty easily by crowdsourcing the funds. ironing out the details of that crowdsourcing so that it doesn't taint the testing process shouldn't be too difficult. i think having 'supporters', whether they are markets, vendors, DN/clearnet services or whoever can be set up so that they are simply that... supporters and not facilitors. as soon as the testing is actually run by these entities directly it can lead to the very thing i think you proposal is attempting to stop - bad actors influencing of testing.

issue 2 can easily be worked out if there are people willing to actually put their DN reputation on the line and invest that rather than funds. not that it actually worked in the end, but i remember when /u/we_are_9000, effwrk and myself tried to set up his crowdsourced testing fund that the biggest initial problem we faced was that no one would put their hand up to be involved to manage the funding/payments/wallets. i actually remember that we asked countless invested or neutral DN entities to just be signatures on a multisig wallet and no one would do it. i can't remember if we asked you, hug or shaky specifically, but i do remember that there was feedback when we asked dread that you all weren't interested in being involved in having that responsibility.

at the end of the day, i think steveirwin knew that the funds management was an issue, and was hence why he may have decided to manage it himself.

now don't get me wrong, assuming the guy was who most of us think he was and selling Nitazene, i am still heavily in the camp that think Steve was a bad guy doing a good thing with T4Pay - but despite that, he was spot on with how he set up most of the aspects of T4P. that is why there was so much buy in as opposed to previous attempts to set up testing initiatives

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago*

I completely get where you are coming from and I understand your concerns. You are right that the regular test4pay process is both simpler and will just work if there is at least someone who wants to do it. But I think you may be misunderstanding my main intentions with this project proposal.

There has been many cases of projects like this failing. /d/dnstars and the various avengers programs on the darknet since basically silk road days. The problem is not that the design can not work. It does work for a period of time. The problem to me is that there is ALWAYS a central source of failure. It will sooner or later always die. Either it is the site itself going down, losing all the tests and history. Or the admins getting replaced, compromised, or disappeared and causing the entire project to implode. Or failures in gaining the traction needed to really make a significant dent for real harm reduction.

Think about test4pay. It wasn't just /u/steveirwin that was a central point of failure for this project; it was also dread. If we go down this project is inaccessible. That is not a failure I am willing to accept in my design.

Think about my design more. What am I really trying to do? Am I only trying to prevent a single point of failure? I am solving that, but I am also addressing the main reasons why these harm reduction efforts fail to make real meaningful change for a very long time. By using, at the source, market integrations the moment there is stability in the core repo system and enough market acceptance the network effect of this program is real powerful. For market admins, not being a part of the program means you will miss out at identifying problematic vendors and also the very positive PR that comes from saving lives in the process. Plus reduction in heat from governments around the world because people are not dying as much because of it. There are many great reasons to be a part of it and no good reasons not to.

It also foundationalizes the support of the project. Let us not neglect the fact that the main funds in the darknet come from commissions markets bring in and profits vendors make from selling illicit goods. Just look at who the top donators of this project are, markets and vendors by a large margin. You want to prevent single sources of funds via crowdsourcing? What better way at showing the value of a project than having multiple markets and vendors get direct informational value from the project itself!

Keyword there is multiple. People and markets would not trust dread to be neutral if there was only one single market or vendor advertised here. It is because there are multiple ones battling each other that people feel more confident in that neutrality. Dread is incentivized to be as neutral as possible to get more ads from multiple sources of income to pay the bills. Taking a bet on a single entity would be stupid to do if the alternative is having multiple compete for basically no control.

This proposal is also made to scale and make the information far more available at the source. When do we want people to make the best decision; at or after purchasing time? Of course, at the time. Where do the majority of users go to buy the majority of the drugs? At the markets. The markets. So let's make the information for the best decision right in their fucking face at the market.So they don't need to search for it. That is something these projects have not done yet. I firmly think it would truly bring these kinds of programs to the next level and make real meaningful change in harm reduction.

As I said at the top. I don't just want a new one. I want a better one. I would hope you would too.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

2 points

1 year ago*

i dont doubt your intention here, but i think it's strange that you seem to think i'm debating the topic and proposal based on me not wanting a better solution. if you followed my interaction with steve and test4pay you'd see pretty clearly that i was always looking to improve the user experience.

anyhow - let's assume we agree on intention, just not on method. i hope this proposal works out, i just have my doubt on the short/medium term viability and the ability to get user uptake.

again, i look at these types of scenarios as a pragmatist and look for the path of least resistance. i also am a firm believer in the adage of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' - and i think T4Pay didn't need an operational overhaul, just some decentralisation and transparency.

Think about test4pay. It wasn't just /u/steveirwin that was a central point of failure for this project; it was also dread. If we go down this project is inaccessible. That is not a failure I am willing to accept in my design.

in relation to this, steve was setting up a stand alone onion site with a lot more functionality that linked/scraped data from markets. i think this approach would of had a lot more scalability long term. a centralised point of decentralised information if you will.

So let's make the information for the best decision right in their fucking face at the market.So they don't need to search for it.

hmm, not sure the process of testing needs to be on a market in order to give the consumer the harm reduction information/test results. the beauty of dread and the T4P sub specifically with the testing results is that there can be further discussion amongst the community. THIS is a big part of what aids the decision making of users as the results themselves are not infallible identifiers of whether the vendor,the drugs, and specifically the batch of drugs are the ones that have been tested. otherwise this setup will probably just function as market reviews currently do. [sarcasm]and we all know how useful market reviews can be[/sarcasm]

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Without the operational overhaul we can't do the decentralisation and transparency. With decentralisation comes a lot of problems. Steve opening up a stand alone onion site with APIs for markets and all that is great but it does nothing if he dies or gets arrested. His site, and all the information, dies with him. With the core repo design we are putting reputation systems on the specific admins that run them. If they try to manipulate, censor, or try anything funny there are other core repo admins that can report that.

I get the hesitation of doing this whole new design when the other one kinda worked. But the simple fact is, it simply does not work if you want decentralisation and true transparency. Nothing says that the communications for these tests can't be done in more a public space after they are published. On the core repo sites there can even be comment sections to keep further discussion amongst the community.

I think you will see once things are up and running that it is a better solution. One that I hope will stand the test of time.

/u/Sirtiltalot

2 points

1 year ago

One advantage I see in using the markets for this proposal is the funding itself, Instead of getting donations, it would be much easier to raise market fee's by a tiny amount (0.5-1% or something) and just have the whole industry pay for this project. This way it takes the work out of having to raise funds and manage them with a steady flow continuously coming through ensuring we always have enough funds to run the project.

I still would push very hard to ensure all the design features are geared towards buyer protection and harm reduction and not to protect vendors from false result attacks or the preventing the odd vendor from having some super high %/quality results. These results will sort themselves. Very Bad and even very good results will result in increased testing on that vendor and product and they will get found out eventually. Vendors that play these games will eventually be found out as long as we get the test numbers up. This is also the most important part. We should be removing as many barriers as possible to increase the number of tests and the random part or having a group of testers is just not gonna cut it. Everyone should have the opportunity to test their gear. Let's think big.

I also would like the ability to look at every single test on every single Australian domestic vendor. If we can group the test this way it would be a big help. I want to know what vendors are randomly sending trash and which ones are consistently good. So although the main data set may be kept off dread on some other site I think having country subdreads managed in the same way we are now with healthy community discussion needs to continue.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago

appreciate the discussion. all the best getting it going :)

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

What I appreciate is you <3. Discussions like this is very important and I am sure there will be growing pains and some issues that will need to be sorted. But my hope is that we at least get a good foundation and build up from that. My hope is that members like you would either group together or operate by yourself a core repo. Your reputation will help get some markets to add you to their submission lists. No programming needed. I'll build the tools and provide the specs so things can get oiled and moving. But there is still quite a human component to this that will need to be figured out. It won't be easy but it's not impossible.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago*

thanks, and back at ya.

you may want to review further on the points of success of T4Pay(and Avengers and those that came before). a large element of the trust and success of those projects was that they had(in a darknet context) personas or teams associated with them that could talk and discuss the tests THEY were doing. now i know this will sound weird from the context of operating on the darknet, but i think removing the 'human' element and making it a random and clinical review will really detract from the project. from a personal perspective i always looked at who was the person that submitted the test, not just the test itself. i had the ability to look at the personas post history and previous reviews - someone asking questions in /d/fraud and /d/vendor_handbook is probably going to have some questions asked of their tests validity. i know this opens things up to manipulation, but it is also one of the core strengths of what worked.

i can garauntee that people will question a test coming from W****B on a market over one from a multiple reviewer like /u/bigdog729 that has a presence and history of helping the community.
at the end of the day, making the testing clinical, random, and removing the human element may seem like the scientific dream, but ultimately you can't remove that human element as someone needs to send off the test. using the weight of positive community engagement is going to be the best way to mitigate bad actors and encourage uptake. randomising access to the testing is going to shrink an already small pool of willing participants to test, not encourage the average drug user to get paid for something they had no intention of doing in the first place.

i'm not going to make up a stat, but most drug users want their fix and can't be arsed with testing. Steve was paying overs to reagent test and that look at how well that went in creating a culture of users reagent testing and discussing methods.

food for thought.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I do agree. But know that vendors will try bribe those persons and some will and can crack for that kind of shit sadly.

That swhyu i proposed like a group of 100 verifed testers. To be chosen by the community (properly). And they need be very transparant. The chance that all 100 gonna crack unlikely since anyone participating isnt rly gaining alot, just doing a great job for the commmunity. Therefore the compensation part should NOT be a big part for the testers. They can have some bonus or free drugs. But that shoudl be enough. We dont want to let people ' capitalize ; on this.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

2 points

1 year ago

the guy running T4P was 99% certainly a vendor, and it seemed to work fine without too many bribes going on - in fact quite the opposite ended up happening with T4P bringing a number of vendors behaviour to light. my main point is that the proposal is trying to fix an issue that worked quite well on test4pay. there wasn't a massive issue with bribes, or more vendors testing than users.

even with random testing, the problem of vendors and bad actors getting involved on both sides wont be solved. what's to stop a person receiving an random acces to test from this project then messaging a vendor and attempting to extort them? so in essence you will be enable a reverse situation as well as the vendors testing themselves using bait and switch.

the only real way to overcome these issues is by weight of numbers and breaking down the barrier to entry for the end user to test. Steve did this with Test4Pay by removing the element of cost.. by adding another barrier, random selection it defeats the purpose of what worked here.

there is no perfect way of operating this on the DN. you're always going to have to rob peter to pay paul unfortunately - BUT.. test4pay worked, it got people doing lab tests and doing reagent test. it also got people talking about results. it was just steve and the payments that fucked up the project.

that's the problem that needs to be work-shopped.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I totally agree. Numbers count. Transparancy also. In the end trust aswell. Thus i would like to make a BIG point on transparancy. ANd the actual people doing the testing.

The rest as you said, and interesting analogy btw , the reversed side (extort), should be pretty easy to weed out or shouldnt have a huge oneffect on the qualitu of the numbers if we have enough tests.

And then we come to the funding....

Lets face it. Vendors are not your friend. But they used to be.... vendors who are good for me its totally moral. We have joy when we see good feedback and returning customers. But never trust a salesmen right?
But the simple fact is that the vendors and the markets will have the most money to distribute to the goal.

And i know all vendors are not doing this for fun lol. This is extremely dangerous and high risk. But we have to. Each for own reasons. But a small % of revenue could be appropriated to the cause. Also the markets makes for me the MOST sense that they include it in their fees. And that whatever amount goed to the testing funds.

DS

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Exactly, for those unaware the onion site was close to complete. We had a vast collection of data stored on it as well, even tho I had a private link and credentials to access it now that Steve is gone so is all the data.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago

it's a shame, because steve was about to solve the issue of centralisation somewhat -or a cynical person(definitely not me haha) could suggest that he wanted to take himself from the confines and potential scrutiny of dread.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I agree with this. A little centralisation is needed. But then transparancy just is really important.

Also maybe have communications with Energylab, maybe they can also take a roll here. Although i doubt it, they are underfunded and staffed as it is..

I def dont think the markets are the place to put the results. But they can adn should promote vendors who are true and not those who are scammers. This is good for the markets also, not killing anyone is alot of less heat. And also more people go the the markets. I think dread is the perfect place to publish the results. Markets should take other steps, such as giving financial aid and other small rewards or bonusses people can take advantage of WITHIN the market.

And i think a seperate onion to all the testslnks should be doable right, in case dread goes down?

I dont know why people are so into decentralisation. Its good. But its not always gold. Here nyou want checks balances and controls. A form of ' trias politica' instituted. Where no one person is judge , jury and execturioner except in extreme cases,, IE someone is missing or goes haywire or whatever you can thihnk of.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

The core repos will record the results while providing markets (and other sites) the ability to pull information. It's a balance. To properly do escrow systems effectively at scale we need these kinds of integrations and incentives. I believe when it's more up and running with the spec and integrations people will understand more.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I agree that these are tensions. But i think with multisig this should go away mostly no ?

Issue 1: from a vendors standpoint: transparancy solves it. To be honest a small fee of every transaction COULD go to test 4 pay. Like mentioned this method helps ALL, markets, vendors community etc. . The only ones who wouldnt donate (i think( are the vendors with shit who are poison. Other hand could lead to witchhunts and appearance of no-neutrality if a given vendors donates alot.

Maybe a program where vendors can sign up for this and just promise to pay X amount per Y, Z , Q P (variabels) , with the amount chose by the mods. Basically a cap so you cant donate all the funds but you are incentivi to sign up. This goes for the markets also. Vendors(the good ones) benefit alot from this and it should be nonstop things. 1 batch maybe good, the other not. And people can go 180 over night. I would happyly send my own sample but i could just in theory pick a good batch and t hen sell a bad one so that no good. Hm.

Random element is really important so no vendor can influence someone. Other hand maybe i see potentiel in a HIDDEN FOR THE PUBLIC but selected bunch of say 100 testers who are known to be worthy of trust do it instead of rdm people. The program is based on trust in the community not 1 individual. And odds that a group of suck honorable testers would crack and give in to lets say finance from a particular vendornor whatever, i deem quite low.

Issue 2: This is a thing i agree. But i think some in this community have gained our trust. They should hold it. Not too many , not too few. These people will ALWAYS be spread FUD about in the future, but not llike thats any different now right xD. Some element of trust seems imposibble to discard. What the best way of this is.. hmm. THats a though one. I would vote for Paris ;P, but what if indeed someone goes missing and funds not accessable. Well then you neeed a backup simply. And a backup for a backup, and if that situation would arrise it would be pretty rare already.

Thi is a pickle to be honest. Because i can imagine also some mod maybe going haywire and taking all the funds that shouldnt be possuble also.

Valid concerns. But i think none that cant be dealth with. This proposal is , as i read it, a strong fundamental draft. But some things might be needed to ironed out fully. Cant make a full judgement , but i thini these concerns will NOT get int the way of the mission of the program, but make the proces more burdensome, a small bump in the road if you ask me.

DS

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

If you run it like a business and use the tester payments as a small overdraft and people who want to make large donations as a safety net you can keep the balances to a point where it's not worth stealing.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Is there currently a way that people can donate? I'd be happy to consistently throw XMR leftovers after an order to the program. It won't be much but if many buyers do the same I think it could amount to a respectable percentage of the programs funding.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I'm sure there will be soon. When we get rolling I will select some of those who contribute at random to receive a prize consisting of all sorts of testing goodies. This will be regardless of donation amount or frequency as being part of a community is about sharing not about how much you share !

BD

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Start by becoming a premium member at dread ! Still have to do that myself.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

True I could do that in the meantime

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

1

Awards Received

Bag of Sand

1

No shots fired :P. Do it only if have money for it of course. But if you have, you always contribute to the best free speech platform there is, and also to the testing part indirectly im sure.

Peace,

DS

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Yeah no worries bro I've bought award emojis a few times in the past but i wasnted to donate to test4pay specifically if possible. I ended up spendinig like $15 on Dread award emojis again...its all I had in XMR at the moment. It was a good idea :)

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Here have a bag of sand :) haha im just playin

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

1

Awards Received

Doge

1

Top dog right here. Thanks alot , if i may, also in the name of dread.

People like you do make a difference,

Thanks brother!

DS

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Here's a doge dog for the real top dog

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

1

Awards Received

Doge

1

Ive had that dog for literally a year.....its an honor to award it to you Mr. Speed

/u/[deleted]

2 points

1 year ago

I am very honoroued brother.

Alllow me to do the same then =).

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Why thank you sir and Thank You kindly for the puppy, I will treat him well.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

I've been trying to give someone I trust a bit $100 for 3.5 years now. Don't hold your breath.

/u/m00nkey

7 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/freem0ney

-6 points

1 year ago

ooooo Paris im definitely in. Look at you sucking some balls. Shouldn't you be at work on your shitty market?

/u/FatherBear

4 points

1 year ago

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

/u/Paris - As a part of our continued commitment to user safety and harm reduction, we will have this implemented as soon as a standardized API design is ready. The proposal in it's entirety seems to solve most core issues that plagued the previous Test4Pay system, we are very happy to see these changes and look forward to keeping the community safe!

The SuperMarket Team

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iLUEARMKAB0WIQTdQpWcB5ai//hcKnVCgKWFssXUJgUCZShN8AAKCRBCgKWFssXU
JktZAf93PLXtIFm62xjUN8kBF0Lcg6oj9H8zCvCajwmWzEe2pZJdvxBBV30Xcsqg
+FzUd+HurHT2V1nQpH7lyerfYCwwAf9GyZI1Vv2cJRaC5wFulUhQH67Ltd4F5ttU
784YRANukHBhiamPj04hW/ldtPade84zkWryEncRx9WrRdUwFWrT
=dCL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

/u/luomo

1 points

1 year ago

/u/Paris!!!

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

LOL!!!

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

This is what we like to hear!

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

We at T4P look forward to working with you !

/u/rushrush

3 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

This feature was in the pipeline with T4P.

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago*

So much of this. a warning should pop up on any vendors page when the results are not what is expected. What do you think, /u/paris

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

It's up to the market to show the vendor test4pay results however they like. From what I have gotten feedback on from them it would be more presented as a alternative review system. Maybe even a table which outlines the testing results with the respective links to the submissions.

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago

I like that. But I just hope they all institute some kind of "3 strikes and you're out" rule for repeat offenders

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

That probably won't work. Market admins need to be aware that there is a chance some vendors may have someone trying to extort them. There is also manipulation which can happen from other vendors trying to attack their competitors. A strike rule is too cut and dry. Makes a clear end goal and threat for these people.

/u/mrzen

1 points

1 year ago

What you are suggesting is an amazing idea on paper, however it is extremely unlinkely that markets will implement this. The scale you are suggesting it to be implemented at will certainly also affect the markets profit if people start avoiding a lot of those vendors due to this.

I just don't see this being implemented.

/u/mrzen

1 points

1 year ago

Also due to the fact that big vendors change batches frequently, it will not be plausible to conduct testing at this scale and then change the results from batch to batch on the market. Just my opinion.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

If there were a lot more drug tests posted on Dread and the markets reported how many tests were done in the last period, Dread would become a lot more popular.

/u/HeadJanitor DOXX Dodger

2 points

1 year ago

I hope this noble passage continues as there are some really scary things being put out there, taking lives. Sad, unintended consequences.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

We aim to expose them so you can dispose of them !

/u/HeadJanitor DOXX Dodger

1 points

1 year ago

Thank you /u/bigdog729 — we'll work together on keeping the community safe; safe and alive.

/u/Sirtiltalot

2 points

1 year ago*

I agree with /u/dontlaugh on the random aspect of testing, anyone who wants to test should be able to. This system should be designed prioritising protection of the buyers in the name of harm reduction, not for protecting vendors from reputation attacks or increasing market share for particular vendors with the best gear.

On the timing of the prompt as well would be good if it lasted quite a while and you don't have to answer immediately. For example sometimes you get drugs from based on some feedback that was good. You then see or try the drugs to be disappointed for one reason or another and decide to get them tested.

It would be good if we users can make that decision rather than being lucky with the randomized prompt. Would also like to be able to make that decision within a reasonable amount of time after the arrival (within a few weeks of finalization of order) rather than at the time of purchasing. Could be as simple as we just say yes to testing every time and then don't send the package for testing if we are happy with what we get. Hoping that doesn't create too much work for the admins or clog up the system though.

It would be even better if we could tie it in with the market feedback system somehow, since 99% market feedback is useless anyway, or even linked in to vendors recent test results from the market.

Hope all the major markets are willing to do the extra work/maintenance to make something like this happen. But also not sure they are incentivized to weed out bad vendors, could be viewed as extra work for same or less profit for them. Will be interested to see what comes of this, great foundation and conversation to kick it off.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Markets may be willing to provide an option for people to submit their order into Test4Pay after the fact. But it would need to be a reasonable time frame after order. Some drugs do not properly keep. It is also important that the submitter is shielded from whatever results are returned. This means markets don't really need to know the specific submission id of a user. That submission id is public and is used to pull up information. The user submitted results also don't need to be in clear text where a market may correlate who said what. It can be encrypted by one or more core operator's PGP keys. Just an extra layer of safety for the user.

I'm going to change that design a bit to account for this.

The specification will outline the specific process a market will need to do to properly submit submissions. It will require submitting the provided user's PGP key at the same time as the submission request. The submission id will be returned in PGP message format using the user's PGP key. That way the information leakage to the market is minimized. As long as a market has more than a couple submissions it becomes much harder to see which user said what... I'm not sure if that's the best design though.

/u/Troopz Tester

2 points

1 year ago*

Sounds great. Love that you are so on board supporting this great initiative Paris! Overall it sounds like a great solution for the future of T4P.

I do think that every user should be able to submit a test for every order, rather than be randomly selected. I can see that this potentially opens the system up to vendor manipulation though, but such is life on the darknet. I think the potential encouragement of more tests outweighs the negatives of potential vendor manipulation. Although maybe random selection with ability to apply to be a "tester" might be the best middle ground solution here.

My other concern is that your order can be linked by the market to the test results, so there is potential for user's shipping data to be linked to their review. Obviously this would only be accessible to market admins and not nefarious vendors, but still a link will exist. In the event of bad test results, you ideally don't want any way to link a specific order with a review. I can't think of any work around for this, and it seems like an okay trade off for all the benefits that a market based system would bring.

/u/Paris 📢 A

2 points

1 year ago

As I explained above /post/0b5b1b7e68411fb49795/#c-ff720053b268b584d6 it's not really needed for a market to see the specific submission id. It is easy enough that a market may request the results about a specific vendor or vendors from core repos via a simple API request. Could even make the request batch based so markets can request all recent results. A result will include the specific vendor PGP fingerprint as reported by the market or user, so they can tie the results back to a specific vendor on their platform. The goal is to separate the user, order, and the result as much as possible. While users will have all the information, core repo owners will have less, and the markets will have basically only the public information (and how many users submitted test4pay things on their market). It's not perfect because core repo admins may be run in part by markets to identify specific users with their submission results (it is the market who is submitting the user PGP key). There is still proper incentives in place to not have that kind of trickery but in the case a market is being run by a vendor I can see a scenario where that is more possible.

/u/Whte-Rabbit

2 points

1 year ago

First of all, thanks a lot to /u/Paris for the time and efforts you quickly put in this siutation. I am one of the active Canadian testers. I have not taken time to read all 137 comments, but I do agree to get markets into the equation would be benefecial to weed out dangerous vendors. Some kind of reputation system other than: "wow 5 starts, I always FE!" but with concrete results from reagents and from other analysis (and fent strip). Ie:
"5 users reported the substance tested positive for X and negative for fent" with proofs and links to the testings or something similar.

A system that makes it in the best interest of everyone to provide tangible feedbacks with proofs of testing. T4P was a pretty good step in this direction, since it got some people who would otherwise only take the substance without testing it to at least send it to a lab. Some of us own plenty of reagents/purity test kits and T4p or not, those results will be posted anyway. When commenting on the "random" aspect of aksing buyer to test, I agree with others for the idea to at least have some "opt-in" option to people who will test regardless. Some users could become "verified" testers if their history/reviews makes sense. Like someone said, even if 5% abuse the system, it's at least 95% of potential life saving public information on actual products being sold.

I'm very eager to see where all of this is going to go and I will continue to engage in testing all of my purchases, like I always did. I'll only follow from time to time since real life is a priority. Thanks again.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

The design to have secret verified testers will need to be worked on more. My hope is that in the process of the core repo admins organizing themselves they will try out a few solutions which might make it work. Probably giving larger payouts to the testers who have specific equipment that can test certain substances.

/u/JasonWallace

1 points

1 year ago

What about test results for drugs purchased off-market from a vendor that is on market. Sent some 4AcO-DMT off that I had ordered and it came back >99.9% pure

/u/Paris 📢 A

2 points

1 year ago

The problem with those tests is you can't be sure that a user who is reporting that they bought from a vendor off market is truly a real user. Not just a random vendor who is reporting something. Either about themselves or others. By making a specific cost (market commission) to even do these reports in the first place it discourages vendors from trying to play the system. Being that any user they send an order to could be randomly selected they need to assume everyone is potential testers. I'm not saying there couldn't be place for well known testers to just test whatever they get. But, in my view, it's important for both the privacy of the user and confidence of the reported result that it first starts at a market.

/u/zerocool

2 points

1 year ago

the random selection is one of the best parts of this. i wonder if there should be an additional level of opt-in/out because i think a message like this could cause some people a bit of nervousness to say the least especially for new people. but that's certainly up to the markets.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

Sample size is a weakness in our methodology without doubt. This is why I began batch testing products on a frequent basis, sadly it ended up with alot of wastage as I am a infrequent partaker. This would be great for a regular consumer of substances to save a bit of coin on their "hobby". Im familiar with study design and it would be simple to select community members whom are known fans of specific products and assign purchases (maybe with a bonus sum) to remedy the sample size issue.

I'm glad you also recognized this flaw.

/u/JasonWallace

1 points

1 year ago

Thank you for the concise explanation!

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I'm of the mind that samples must be purchased through markets alone. Without having a listing of what was tested there is little point.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

All the vendors I do DD with sell the same product on the markets.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

My only qualm with this is that a vendor is less likely to provide a dodgy product to an established and long running customer over a marketplace user who treats accounts like frangers.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Good point. I gave him a very cool flair. He's mine for life.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Ɓ ୧| ⁰ ᴥ ⁰ |୨ Ɗ

Does this mean I own you too?

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Sadly not, my parents sold me during the recession in the 80s to a family from Taiwan. My days consisted of washing the feet of textile industry executives from all around the world. On my 19th birthday they released me from servitude with only a hessian sack to clothe my malnourished and frail frame. I walked for what seemed like days eventually making it to a small fishing village called Magong, a kindly captain of a merchant vessel took me in as a deck hand and taught me the ways of life on the open seas, soon I was the best fisherman onboard and earned the nickname "Big Tuna". Eventually I saved enough money to buy the deed of ownership my parents sold me with and buy a vessel of my own. Now I spend my days casting nets and hauling crabs to ports on the east coast of Japan. After all this I made a solemn oath to never again be owned.

/u/codeless

1 points

1 year ago

That sounds like a great idea, especially with the market integration and API because then it can be verified that a sale took place from the specific market/vendor name/PGP. Would have to make sure who the buyer is stays anonymous and make it clear to them at the time that if they take part they won't be compromised in any way.

/u/baberuthhitter

1 points

1 year ago

Love it. Look forward to participating!

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

We look forward to your contributions !

/u/excusememate

1 points

1 year ago

Will be participating thanks fo the proposal :)

/u/amaturetester

1 points

1 year ago

As usual, count me in ;)

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

You have been marked off on the role.

/u/amaturetester

1 points

1 year ago

One of many reasons why this project is so important

http://dumpliwoard5qsrrsroni7bdiishealhky4snigbzfmzcquwo3kml4id.onion/image/cb060810be5bf252.jpeg

Note the part about "No active substance"

NOONE should pay money for this type of listing

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I am sorry you got shit gear. Let's all work together so noone ever gets a shit bag again !

/u/REAL_OG

1 points

1 year ago

Yessss!!
Let's Do it!!

/u/whatwhatphenibut

1 points

1 year ago

Love the thought put into this;; woiuld totally buy more drugs in hopes of being selected to test

/u/yourmainvendor

1 points

1 year ago

Please consider importing the old results from vendors if you do make a new sub-dread. Because those results are still valid

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

I have copies of all the results backed up. Good idea ;

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

/u/1rocketcycle

1 points

1 year ago

If this version will be open to submissions from the previous version's "friend" countries, I'd participate. :)

/u/newbieforever2018 P

1 points

1 year ago

I am sure that you have your hands full already dealing with dread alone so very kind of you to offer up this superior system to bring harm reduction up to 2024 standards.

Thank you !!!!!

/u/Trojan

1 points

1 year ago

You've got the support from /d/Darkipedia! :)

/u/bocceball P

1 points

1 year ago*

We need this.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Funnily enough we also need you !
Mutual benefit is a beautiful thing.

/u/DRAZZILB1424

1 points

1 year ago

so down for this

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

If we had a red carpet we'd roll it out for you !

/u/SmoovDood

1 points

1 year ago

can anyone lin k good marquee tests? I use dancesafe and have been reliable.. but i think in order for this to really flourish we need to showcase good testing resources as well and what is reliable and trusted! I only see many not participating due to the lack of resources/knowledge of quality testing outlets.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

2 points

1 year ago

here's our list over on /d/HarmReduction
/d/HarmReduction/wiki/?id=6b6d8a77

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

I've been working on a solution to bring shelf stable, low cost (using analytical grade components not technical grade like those currently available) reagents to domestic testers. Keep an eye out if interested.

/u/BigDaddy2K

1 points

1 year ago

Great proposal paris and this will really help the community!

/u/ShroomScience

1 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago

You find harm reduction peculiar

/u/ShroomScience

1 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago

Yeah, and maybei just misunderstood your response. That's the whole point of this program, to test drugs on the markets and call out the bad vendors. Again if I misunderstood your response, my apologies. This program will be something that helps attempt to end this practice of calling something banned by a different name and selling it in 4k on the market. I'm still one of the people that would prefer a market just had a fentanyl section love archetype. It's amazing to me how many of the vendors moved they're products formerly sold as China white or pressed pills to the fentanyl section, making it easier for people to avoid fent if they want. I think the way it is on other markets is absolutely wreckless, and they're playing a game of "cover your eyes when you see China White or pressed pills".

/u/nugget

1 points

1 year ago

Good proposal mate.

If their is anything I can help with, sing out ;)

/u/Sirtiltalot

1 points

1 year ago

Paris said too send me some freebees that would help the most....

/u/nugget

1 points

1 year ago

Ha ha, you can self test them by swallowing...

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

The technical term is in vitro bioessay !

/u/nugget

1 points

1 year ago

Fuck, I will have to remember that one, it will spin the boys out, all scientific and shit!!!!

/u/Sirtiltalot

1 points

1 year ago

Haha I like this term better as well!

/u/ModernGhost

1 points

1 year ago

I might of missed it but will the amount of donations really cover the amount of tests done? Wasn't Steve paying out a lot from his own pocket?

/u/Paris 📢 A

2 points

1 year ago

it's not guaranteed that it will. I'm sure a lot of markets, vendors, and users will support it because it does provide a good value proposition. But there are a good chance donations may not completely cover the need. In those cases the core repo admins will need to decide to either do donation drives to bring more funds in (maybe prioritizing certain results which have donations) or cutting the payout amount for tests.

At the start /u/SteveIrwin paid most of it out of pocket but did get some large donations which would have been enough for many hundreds of tests to be validated.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Its gonna be abused even with this

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago

Nothing is perfect, but you don't throw away the whole concept because of that. You use it, learn when mistakes happen, maybe implement that a buyer must have purchased from (X) amount of different vendors to attempt to avoid the shills, or have been a market member for (X) amount of months/years. Roll with the punches, I'm not code savvy enough to know if this is feasible, but possibly include an AI aspect that can sniff out shill accounts based on it's learning model. Again I can't speak to that, I've just seen AI being used for amazing things that are somewhat similar. But I'd have to defer to /u/Paris if that is feasible or would even be possible/useable

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

nah that aint gonna work i could be ordering grams for years and then a vendor pops up offering me free stuff 2 lie about the result. plenty scammers with 3+ year accounts

ai aint gonna stop shit

/u/b0b4f3ttyw4p

1 points

1 year ago

Who's going to take bad dope for free and give a good review? And the vendor won't know which customer is chosen.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Thats where the power of numbers come in. Also there is a market atm where you can for instance upload the foto of the product in the review, Now: OPSEC aside. Those kind of things can help.

If the testing concept is not in your favour it is because the drugs you sell are trash,

If you are making a big drama on 1 specific part of the whole complex concept you need to think more nuanced and less black/white.

regards,

DS

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Random spot checks would stop this. Tester that have been around longer have greater credibility because they're harder too bribe. My soul will cost you 3 hookers and plenty of coke for all of us for the night.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

It's not a perfect system. I don't think it could ever be. It might be because the project is flawed in it's own right and destined to failure. Hard to know.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

thats true u need some way to hold them to account idk

btw /u/partytime mia?

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

That's the one issue we can't really fix. The moment a payment is paid for a submission there is no way to get it back. As random people submit their test results there is also no reputation risk either.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Just because a vendor is tested once doesn't mean they won't be tested again. Any order can be going to a tester so if they cut their stuff or sub it out for something else this program will alert the community about it. It's only a way to keep them honest and clear out the bad vendors. Good vendors turn bad all the time.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

The program itself is sound it just has some issues that need to be smoothed out. Some issues will have some bumps but that doesn't mean we can drive over it.

/u/partytime Test4Pay - PR

1 points

1 year ago

Yes, I was down due to ISP issues, mates. Posted in /d/CafeDread about it. Bloody wankers at the old ISP wanted more money, as usual. Switching took a long while due to foulups with the new provider. All going well enough now. Cheers!

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Good to see you back !

/u/jethro23

1 points

1 year ago

This seems like a great addition to markets for users and honest vendors. Markets who participate will have an advantage as well

/u/DMTrott

1 points

1 year ago

This is cool.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

2 points

1 year ago

Don't forget you're cool too !

/u/DMTrott

1 points

1 year ago

Lol. Thanks. :-)

/u/reuofbherofnheroh

1 points

1 year ago*

Random function must be weighted by a multitude of factors. Imagine a brand new account buys1xLSD tabs 100 times for $150, and some other seasoned account buys 1kg coke for $15,000. The person who buys the tabs ends up getting the test opportunity with 100x the likelihood despite having spent a fraction of what the other buyer has spent thus making it pretty low cost for competitors to fuck with each others PR. Vendors will realize this and make sure their listings are above a certain quantity pushing small time buyers out of the market.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

You are right. While I said random realistically markets can choose whatever user they want to be prompted to submit the result on the order. It's up to the market admin to decide which situation would be more likely to yield a valuable information result to themselves or the community. In my mind there is a very high chance that a new user selling opioids will have most of their first orders tested while others may only get it occasionally. Core repo admins can also make different incentives for testers for more high risk parts of the markets to be tested more.

In large part vendors make most of their money from either small time buyers or other vendors selling to small time buyers. It's not a worry that all vendors would just increase their order size to reduce the order amount leaving no small quantity orders left on markets. That just won't happen. Because of there was such an opening like that many vendors would join to fill it. The profit margins on the smaller quantity stuff is far more than the larger stuff.

/u/Serious-Then-Join

1 points

1 year ago

Overall I think we must have something like this. So, great idea.

I'd like to see an actual proposal with numbers though. For example, what percentage of users? Does purchase size matter, or is a $10 purchase given the same weight as a $10,000 purchase? Does user purchase history and longevity matter? How much in the incentive? These things have to be thought about carefully to make nefarious gaming of the system costly to those who provide either false data, or bad substances.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

There are ways to balance things out to make it fair.

The incentives are probably going to be about the same. That's to say not that horribly much if you are doing the lab tests (basically the payout is less than the cost to send to do the tests). Reagent tests I guess can be possible to make money on but that's only if you order a lot and test a lot. I'm sure core admins will provide more incentives for certain kinds of tests. Maybe double payout for a lab test on a new vendor. Extra bonuses for testers who do a lot or have specific equipment for certain kinds of tests.

When it comes to markets selecting when to prompt, while I said random, it doesn't really need to be truly random. Markets can prompt whatever user they want for it. They are incentivized to prompt people enough that vendors need to be honest but not too much that core repo admins think they are trying to abuse their systems. It is up to the core repo admins to decide what submissions to accept and payout. They can simply reject the submissions or block all submissions from market if they choose so. That wouldn't be a good thing for the project but it is something they can do that the market has no control of.

/u/[deleted]

2 points

1 year ago

Im of the school of thought that the markets and vendors should take a small % od their profits and tunnel it into the funds. This way the payoff economic will be settled, i mean you guys dont need make profit on this, Just not lose money. And the HUUUUUGE bonus is that the test is free. If all chip in a little (OBV markket and vendors have most resources, any millionair dread rich shit could donate of course also, if their are any, there arent because otherwise he wioyhld have done it and he wouldnt have been a shit.

Anyway i like that you are thinking nuanced about the rdm aspect. I would love to see JUST THE MONEY ASPECT come from the markets and or vendors. Testing can be done here by trusted people chose by proven legends.

DS

/u/lablarry

1 points

1 year ago

great proposal, and response time on the issue. I think because all the new more potent chemicals than something like fentanyl come at an alarming new rate nowadays so people should be prioritizing the legitimacy of the product at all costs, because underestimating that can be a deadly mistake to make.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

We will be getting fentanyl test kits out very soon, keep an eye out !

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

/u/Paris

This is extremely generous of you to donate your time in this way. I've mulled over your proposal multiple times and although it is not a perfect system I can't imagine a better one (atleast in the current circumstances) .
The skeleton team being able to complete such a task would require at least a few months. I say for myself and I am sure /u/gofastyeah shares my view, the sooner we can resume our work in harm reduction the better.

BD

/u/venomous

1 points

1 year ago

Pretty good idea about the repo method. Just wondering how many punters would actually click to get tested - most DGAF except a few community people who submitted regular (me being one of them) who wanted people to know wtf was in their drugs. Happy to support !

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Thanks mate, sorry about what happened at the end there. Im going to figure out a way to make it up to you as T4P values your input.

/u/venomous

1 points

1 year ago

all good, if you guys end up getting funds feel free to send over for the 5 tests lol I will keep submitting them anyway! love this initiative.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

This game you could never win. Cause they love you then they hate you then they love you again ... ----- yeezy aka kayne west

/u/TimothyWeary2023

1 points

1 year ago*

This change kinda sucks after I was already owed for 2 tests and it was not known that SteveIrwin was arrested.

I mean dipsticks and reagent kits ain't cheap. Guess I'm out of the testing game if I have to be choosen at complete random.

I was never doing it for money, I was doing it to raise the bar for reviews in /d/reviews and drug specific dreads, amd just crossposted here for some extra XMR.

My goal was safety for others. Just wish I had made my initial reagent investment back before going to lottery system.

What the fuck did SteveIrwin do, anways? I'm legit kinda pissed, out about $220.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I've been working on a solution to bring shelf stable, low cost (using analytical grade components not technical grade like those currently available) reagents to domestic testers. Keep an eye out if interested.

/u/thisislove

1 points

1 year ago

I am willing to participate in this!

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

We would love to have you onboard !

/u/tryitagain

1 points

1 year ago

step 2 is flawed. it would require market transparency

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

It's not a trustless system. The incentives are right for the market to follow the program but if they decide to just spam invalid or worthless test results or not even prompt people in the first place they wouldn't really be counted as a participant in the program. There is less trust needed than having just random users report they bought drugs from a certain vendor because multiple markets are competing for market share. If the markets are not being honest in their design the core repo admins will be able to figure that out quickly and alert the community.

/u/tryitagain

1 points

1 year ago

more links in the chain greater chance for weakness

the incentive changes from revenue lost to revenue generated

the old way was fine minus the centralized funds.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Weakness in what regard? What do you mean revenue lost to revenue generated?

The old way had a single point of failure in not only the payment systems but also in the site. If dread went down the project would be gone too.

/u/lilboosiesnappin

1 points

1 year ago

I can definitely see this working. Time to flush out the frauds.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Thats the spirit !

/u/Jarrit0s

1 points

1 year ago

DID WE TELL IF COULD OFFER

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

This is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

I love it. Making the world a better place.

DS

/u/zc4tz

1 points

1 year ago

hey, i think this is awesome and would love to be part of this! i have some questions, as i only am really familiar with getting naloxone femtanyl reagent tests, to carry for my oen community. but please reach out and let me know how i can help. cheers mate <3

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Where abouts are you located friend ?

/u/zc4tz

1 points

1 year ago

hey i'm really interested in getting involved. only mostly familiar with administering naloxone, and acquisition of femtany test kits. but id be happy if you reach out if theres a way i can help out. would be happy to chat

/u/st0rm_thunder

1 points

1 year ago

I was just speaking to one of your admins about helping out with this -- if you need anything please let me know I spoke with /u/solar

/u/gonnagoforit P

1 points

1 year ago

Any information for people possibly willing to host a core repo /u/Paris ? Would be willing to host one.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

It's going to take me a bit of time to build out the tooling and specs for this. It will be an open standard. Those who can program their own version will have their core repos out first but my hope is that the core repo code will be so easy to run that anyone can reasonably run it.

/u/gonnagoforit P

1 points

1 year ago

Would you say it would be worth start working on something now or should I wait for you to come out with more tooling/specs/information first? Obviously all the repos would need to be able to communicate and be similar in some way, but I’m happy to start somewhere now.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Wait for the spec to be released in the next week or so. Then from the spec you can build your own core repo site or API integration.

/u/gonnagoforit P

1 points

1 year ago

Sounds good

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

This is simply awesome. Can't tell how much i thank you for your service

/u/Alchou

1 points

1 year ago

I'm definitely in bro

/u/javascriptdeveloper

1 points

1 year ago

A system like this to submit subjective trip reports would be a data goldmine.

/u/threedee

1 points

1 year ago

Making sure people don't accidentally dox themselves will be a nightmare if you enabled this en-masse

/u/asfaleia

1 points

1 year ago

Additionally.

What about highlighting the vendors that are including in their shipments by default or at the request of the buyer (for a price?) the sealed testing kits (where available) for their products?

Buyers already rate the vendors on the market for their services with stars and short notice. They could include the test-output the same way.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Some markets in the past have outlined vendors who provide their own testing kits but there was a case where invalid testing kits were provided by the vendor. There is no perfect way to have vendors provide their own tests. Plus there is heightened risk that vendors might get identified from their orders of the testing kits. The simple way to just do it is have users by the testing kits themselves and then have the program pay pack a portion of that purchase on successful test completion.

/u/asfaleia

1 points

1 year ago*

I see, there are also drawbacks, as with every solution. But the stakes are high.

I am not sure if the testing kits are available from the clearnet easily and how suspicious it is to order those for an average Joe (testing for drugs in workplace, schools, children protection...) without flagging themselves? Or it is better to order the kits separately from the various vendors on the DNM (most probably) that can easily be the vendors of the drugs themselves?

Can we possibly simplify the complexity of various substances and unwanted additives to the most dangerous ones and concentrate on those to prevent the worst? If Mr Pareto was right with his 20//80 principle (and he was), this targeted approach could be very fruitful. The incentives could be the next step once the control process is established.

Either way it is a good business opportunity for everyone to ensure the reasonably reliable testing kits for the buyers.

/u/good4nothing

1 points

1 year ago

Add to your proposal that the council can't be affiliated with Dread or any market in any way. Will you have your own outlet like Recon was to display the results and track the vendors?

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Core repos will be the central store of data. Anyone can run them, including markets. There will probably be some recon upgrades for all of this data to be shown.

/u/good4nothing

1 points

1 year ago

I don't see how they are trustable if market and dread admins can be affiliated with payouts.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

That's up for you to decide. People can have many names on the darknet. Just because at first they don't seem affiliated doesn't mean they are not. Things need to be designed to work even when a person could have multiple roles.

/u/good4nothing

1 points

1 year ago

I like this program and your attempts to make it better. It should be advertised on Dread, especially on subs like /d/coke, once it is back online.

I would like to help test in batches of a managable amount of samples though DanceSafe if they are willing and will contact them to get their thoughts. Some help with OpSec would be appreciated. I will reach out to the T4P sub when I have specifc questions.

DrugsData is cost prohibitive. When I asked the DS rep about this recently they relayed to me that DS had tried to setup batch testing with DD and it would have cost DS more per test than individuals pay per test. There are a few reasons for that but we did not get too far into that topic. FITR testing is not GC/MS but if it could be done with reagents without relying on a hundred dollars in donations it would reduce harm, the main goal of this program unless I missed it again, and save some funds while increasing the amount of data added to the core repo.

Separately there might be an 'Old Data' warning for test results older than a timeframe to be decided by the council. 30 days? 60 days? Many vendors are selling whole kilograms of various product within 30-60 days. This suggestion might be bad but I can not decide for myself at the moment.

You are awesome, Paris. Long Live T4P!

/u/KyleKlemons54

1 points

1 year ago

I personally wouldn't mind this. Especially since I'm considering getting myself to a point where I am able to take Steroids and see what happens. Hopefully this takes off the ground.

/u/Proponent

1 points

1 year ago

I'm suriprised no-one else has asked this but, how much money are we talking to be a tester? <0.5 XMR?

/u/biscuitofeternalcrunch

1 points

1 year ago

I haven't read the all the arguments surrounding the process but it's great to see people thinking and working hard to get this underway. Good work guys. I really hope this goes ahead.

/u/RxMonster

1 points

1 year ago

Sounds good sign me up! I would be open for a cause such as this PM with instructions

/u/hugepayns

1 points

1 year ago

thx u so much wow

/u/footsteps

1 points

1 year ago

Whatever you do, you can never completely avoid problems, so I presume you already decided to heavily manage users expectations...

/u/goodpotatochip

1 points

1 year ago

great updats dang

/u/abraxas23

1 points

1 year ago*

Ok so what impeach vendors to send you a good quality sample and send customers samples of good quality until they have red certification and then cut it with whatever they want ?
Where is the certification? actually it's not useful, because it determines only the quality of a sample not all that can be sold all year long or the last quality received or crafted.
For me it's just a way for some labs to make money over you guys.
And you talk about trust on a forum full of scams and fraud skills i'd rather go to the chemist at the street corner and ask them for a test and put the picture on my stores of the exact % of lysergamine ?
But let me know... only this labs are certified???

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

The random selection system. Any order a vendor sends off could potentially go to a tester. Just because a vendor has had their drugs tested once doesn't mean it won't happen again. Consistent testing and verification is needed. Good vendors turn bad all the time. This program will help keep those vendors more honest by showing when and how decreases in their quality is being sent out.

/u/abraxas23

1 points

1 year ago

I join you on this point, if it's random selection but there's also the vendors solicited what if some get corrupted as it always happen ? Labs have human beings behind what impeaches a bigger dealer to have good notation even they sale sh**t and a smaller one not because he didn't pay enough the lab ?
Wake up we live on earth we are on dark web to provide ourself privacy and reviews introducing labs with listings with names of shops vendors customers under the eye of governmental power upper (LE) is no good for business. But

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

No system is perfect. Either the tester could be corrupted or the labs they use. Generally though the labs are going to be a reasonably trusted source of information. They are paid to test drugs. If they can't do that they have no purpose.

/u/threedee

1 points

1 year ago

Bear with me - this is not my field and I am not really clear on the mechanics BUT...
would it be wise to set up a block chain based database with a POS style system for consensus?
If every market were to subscribe and run a node, they would effectively commit funds in order to be able to take part in the program.
Let's say every transaction has a 0.01% fee to allocate for paying for user testing (as some others have suggested), that collected amount could be used as a way to weight algorithms about which nodes get to validate next records or something.

Because the POS is less energy hungry than POW, it would cost less to do this to house all of this data in a blockchain accessible by anybody anywhere.

Anybody could download the ledger, but not anybody could become a node as you have to have a way to provide POS (I get very fuzzy as to how to limit this here...)

So, this would provide the repository and decentralized data set, but if each transaction is recorded in the ledger,you bet LE would want to analyze this (and so would market competitors to see who is performing how etc) so this would need to be structured in much the same way as XMR so that only the parties involved in a transaction can see certain details, while other details could be made public, or made public only via specific nodes/api's?
I mean, it would make sense for everyone to be able to view their own test submission.
It would make sense for the regional test centers to see their collective submissions (though they may already track this inhouse)
It would maker sense for vendors to see results relating to them (within the market that the results were submitted for)
It would make sense for the markets to be able to see their own data.
It would make sense to be able to expose vendor performance across markets (this might have to be an inference or scoring system)
It would make sense to show performance over time, per product, per volume.

It would be LE's dream to get all of that data, so the block chain would need to be able to hold various records of varying accessibility in all nodes in a way that makes it future proof.

Also, I do not believe that anything older than a year should be stored other than perhaps as a performance indicator/metric.
Test data itself becomes invalid quite quickly as vendors change suppliers, upstream suppliers cut new manufacturing/logistics deals and arrangements, product volumes shift etc etc.

What is valuable to users is knowing that the vendor they are dealing with now has a recent history of providing 'x' quality product.

/u/TimothyWeary2023

1 points

1 year ago

What about those who were owed money for tests before Steve was declared MIA? I did my last test when he had logged in like less than 48 hours previously.

Also, what about people who wish to reagent and dipstick test review all their orders anyways? Will they be able to volunteer?

Thanks for your time and effort in trying to restore this very helpful service.

Personally, I thought if all the major markets earmarked a single digit percentage of their profits that it would fund this project 10 times over. It's in their best interest too, unless they have dirty admins who are letting poisoned products on their market just because the vender makes them a lot of money. In the case of those types of markets, I'd be overjoyed when they're forced to ban their pet poison dealer.

/u/Paris 📢 A

1 points

1 year ago

Being that Steve had the funds for those tests and it's not accessible no payout can be made. Maybe in the future the core repo owners will figure it out a payment but I personally doubt it. That's just the luck of the game man.

Core repo owners can choose to accept reagent and dipstick test reviews themselves without market orders but it would be discouraged. Not being able to prove on a third party that it was from a specific vendor was a major issue with this program. Well known and trusted testers (specifically ones with specialty equipment) may be provided the ability to submit their tests and be paid for them. It's all up to what the core repos will decide among themselves and what the community is willing to support.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago*

If you want reporting I had software that automatically scraped multiple Monero wallets, made the Monero human readable, and added them to a out of date pirated version of Quickbooks Non Profit. I can get it to print anything on a report. It ran in a VM so I could give anyone a copy. I deleted the VM but it shouldn't be hard to set it up again. Any Non Profit accounting package will work. It doesn't have to be pirated.

I love your proposal. I'll spend the next week working out what it means. I love a challenge.

I logged in to make a much simpler proposal. I want to talk HighTimesAU into sending me a Mini Cannabinoid Test Kit. The recommended test maxes out a a measly 25% and I'm testing ◥▶ᏔᎥᏁᎶsuᎥᏆ◀◤ by Compound Genetics. It could be as high as 30%.

I'm also going to ask if he'll make me good on the difference between price I pay per gm when I buy my normal 28gm and what I pay when I buy smaller quantities for samples. I asked him 12 months ago and he was keen. If I sold the best pot in the country, I'd be keen too.

Am I going to be allowed to post the results anywhere? I'd like to link a review, a test, an ad, and maybe a sub if I can get him back on Dread.

Thanks

ℋเ℘℘ყ☮👁️⃤ 📐 🏄️ 𝓢µ૨ƒε૨

/u/cholly

1 points

1 year ago

The problem you have is people use it as flouting that the gear they've either bought or are selling is of good quality, but without proven lab results this is frought with discrepencies!

/u/poorJoe

1 points

1 year ago

great proposal thanks keep it up

/u/Byt3s

1 points

1 year ago

Keep up the great work, /u/Paris. A service like this is extremely important to stay alive, and harm reduction plays an integral part in user safety. Looking forward to what you have planned for it, and, as always, keep up the fantastic work you do for the community!

/u/finessehog

1 points

1 year ago

I don't think it will ever be the same but I think it can be better
If i can be of any help let me know
Much love to your and yours on here y'all are the goats

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

On the principal that the only thing better than drug testing is more drug testing. Do the plan plus this.

Work out a way for the Vendors that are active on Dread to pay to get their drugs tested. The bad Vendors won't get their drugs tested and no-one will buy them. The good Vendors will gain market share and be more competitive on the Markets.

If the Vendors who have paid for testing promote that these tests aren't available on the markets but you can see them on Dread, it would bring more people to Dread and increase the market share of the good Vendors again.

If Vendors were allowed to pay for tests on other Vendors whom they suspected of being dodgy it would be carnage.

A little C̖̩̮̔̾͐́ͅh̫̜̓̂á̘͉̉ó͎̥͡s͚͈̭̦̈́̈̄͒ is always fun.

/u/advent

1 points

1 year ago

From what I posted on test4pay, unfortunately they're open to abuse. Whether it be from rival vendors, buyers or the actual vendor. Just like anything else, you can get a vendor send off washed / cleaned product then they claim they're selling the best thing since sliced bread. You can get a rival, buy a product, cut it to shit then send it off in the knowledge it'll come back with cuts. Then you have legit buyers pissed at a vendor, for any reason do the same thing.

Not only does the system stink in this aspect, (which admittedly theres no way around) the actual testing is sub par. They're not a "proper scientific lab" per say, they're a set up. No real chemistry like Gas Chromatography is used. No Mass Spectrometer. So you're not getting accurate results as you would at a lab. Sure, you're gonna be able to tell if half of the gram of coke you've ordered has paracetemol in, and half of the pill you bought is filled with PMA, but you're not going to get %'s and adultered %'s

Along with all of that, the presence of test4pay on the dark web, dread etc, leaves themselves open to being swindled by vendors, shills and the likes. Neutrality will always be key in this field, I know a lot of the people on here get blindsided by x y z result being published without any due diligence on the poster, and test4pay plays a role in that, which they could be very much unaware of at the time, but they're going off the honesty of a result someone has sent in, and we all know it may not be by goodwill actors doing this.

The only true way, which is unfortunate in todays world, is you have to buy product yourself and judge it. If you're then willing to send it off to an actual lab and get scientific results, so be it, you can then get the knowledge that you've bought either top grade gear or sub par gear. But sharing it in the community, be prepared for shill call outs and the general bs claims from the sespit that is here on dread!

/u/nomorerunning

0 points

1 year ago*

[removed by moderators]

/u/Paris 📢 A

2 points

1 year ago

See people, this is why drug tests are so important. To prevent people from turning into insufferable cunts like this guy who took too many hits of bathsalts marketed as molly.

/u/nomorerunning

1 points

1 year ago

idiot.

/u/ShroomScience

1 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/Paris 📢 A

3 points

1 year ago

Banning things don't make them go away. This is the whole reason why the war on drugs have failed for so long. The whole point of test4pay is to find out if the listing product is the same as the received one. If it's not we can report that to the community and the market to actually solve things.

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

Facts brother. The war on drugs, dont get me started about it.

DS

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I see you are fiery and passionate both traits indicate you have vast quanties of energy and drive. Imagine how you could use this to improve your life or improve the lives of others. Instead you squander this gift by being angry about strangers on the internet.

I hope your day gets better and I wish you the best luck in the week ahead.

BD

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Feels good deleting comments like thsse.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago

haha swing dat ban hammer

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

I hate being punitive, I'm more fond of educating and working with others so they grow out of their idiot clothes and grow into their best person they can be outfit.

/u/dontlaugh Darknet Godsend

1 points

1 year ago

hold on.. i'm just going to slip out of these dirty idiot clothes and slip in to my best person outfit for you baby.

/u/bigdog729 P The Labcoat Mod

1 points

1 year ago

Don't forget the nylon's, and pencil skirt this Big Dog has a thing for Secretaries. The noise of a clip board snapping papers into place is the red rockets blast trigger.

/u/legallevi

0 points

1 year ago

[removed]

/u/[deleted]

1 points

1 year ago

What?