[Cryptography] Drop Zone: P2P E-commerce paper

[17Q4MX2hmktmpuUKHFuoRmS5MfB5XPbhod at mail2tor.com]

>
> What does this mean -- does "testnet" have the capability for a "secure
> communication channel" ?  I'm unfamiliar with that, that would be a
> significant variation on testing the mainnet...
>
>
>
> So, my attack would be to (a) set up a seller of contraband stuff, which
> I simply steal from the evidence locker, (b) do all that stuff you
> mention above, and (c) surround the dead letter boxes with lots of
> cameras and other sensors.
>
> (d) Sell, profit, then after a year go roll up all my entrapped &
> identified victims.  Oh, and refill the evidence locker.
>
> (e) Rinse & repeat.
>
>
> As far as I can see, the attack doesn't even damage my reputation score?!

As proposed, the use of testnet is a significant deviation from its
current uses as a staging network for value transfers on mainnet. 
Nonetheless, communication channels can be established over testnet in the
same way they can be established over mainnet: by embedding messages
inside transactions (Typically via OP_CHECKMULTI, though OP_RETURN is
prefferable).  The reason for using testnet over mainnet is the reduced
cost.  Persistence isn't needed for this function, so mainnet does not
offer any advantage over testnet.  Such an example of this usage is cited
in the paper and available here: http://www.royalforkblog.com/btc-pgp/

Regarding the proposed attack, much of it is addressed in the paper
proper.  Contraband enforcement typically focuses on supply chains. 
Buyers have always been at risk of being caught by bad acting sellers. 
This protocol does not lessen that risk to buyers, but it certainly does
not increase it.  In your proposed attack vector, third party enforcers
are still selling the products to buyers for long periods of time.  Drop
Zone is specifically designed to invert the enforcement structure so that
supply chain disruption is no longer a problem.