[kbenson]

> Darknet markets have reputation systems, and have already figured this out.

But again, why should I trust a darknet? What makes a group of criminals trustworthy when a single one isn't?

You haven't really addressed the fundamental problem of trust, just kicked it down the road to a new point. Any legitimate entity seeing usage in an effort to authenticate a criminal will likely be seeing subpoenas for access information. If they are resistant to those subpoenas, then they are helping the criminals, and are acting illegally. Both states have severe negatives for one of the parties.

[Bartweiss]

What makes anyone reliable? A good reputation.

Only a small fraction of trust among non-criminals is backed by force of law. The rest is backed by past record. If you don't have one, you put up collateral, get someone else to stake you (e.g. loan co-signers), or start small until people get to know you.

The only real question here is how you verify who you're dealing with. That's doable, and once it's done everything else is a pretty established process.

[kbenson]

> What makes anyone reliable? A good reputation.

It's not just about how reliable they are, it's about what incentives they have to follow through, and what recourse you have when the do not. Entities acting illegally have very different incentives than legal ones, and your recourse if they do not follow through is very limited, especially if you are acting legally.

> Only a small fraction of trust among non-criminals is backed by force of law. The rest is backed by past record.

Past record accounts for some of it, that ability to exact your own punishments accounts for some of it. Any drug dealer that screws over a client needs to account for that person taking the matter into their own hands.

> The only real question here is how you verify who you're dealing with.

That's not the only question. I believe I've outlines many more in my other responses in these threads (one of which was to you).