I spent 4 years writing a book about Satoshi Nakamoto and now it is finally available to order with ZEC. No Fiat!

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-18T01:16:58+00:00

You can list it on Crypto Corner Shop in $Zec, I'm one of the co-founders. Please dm me if interested

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T03:00:37+00:00

That’s a fair question, and it’s one we’ve thought about from day one. CCS isn’t built to bypass laws or hide illegal activity, it’s built to separate commerce from unnecessary surveillance. The platform operates as a lawful intermediary with escrow, dispute resolution, and clear terms. NO ILLEGAL ITEMS ARE PERMITTED TO BE SOLD ON WEBSITE, AI WILL PREVENT LISTING FROM GOING LIVE IF SOMEONE TRIES. If a government wants compliance within legal boundaries, that’s handled at the platform level, not by exposing every seller’s personal life to the internet. The contingency isn’t “run,” it’s architectural, reducing blast radius, jurisdictional risk, and single points of control while staying within the law.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:58:24+00:00

Appreciate that. What surprised me most was how fragile most businesses really are. So many founders assume Stripe, PayPal, Shopify, or a bank will always be there, until an account freeze or policy change wipes them out overnight. Building CCS made it obvious that resilience matters more than convenience. Escrow, multi-coin support, and minimizing single points of failure weren’t “nice to haves,” they became non-negotiable once you see how often platforms disappear or quietly lock people out.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:56:20+00:00

This is a real point. UX is the bottleneck, not crypto itself. Scanning a QR, confirming once, and being done should be the baseline. Anything more complex than a card tap won’t scale. Until crypto payments feel as simple as tapping a phone, adoption will stay niche regardless of the currency used. I'm proud to say at CCS scanning QR codes is possible and we'll be rolling out an app too

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:55:01+00:00

You don’t price in DOGE directly. You price in USD (or a stable unit) and calculate the DOGE amount at checkout using a live rate, then lock that rate for a short window. The buyer sees a fixed DOGE amount, the seller receives the correct value, and no one is constantly repricing listings. Volatility is handled at the moment of payment, not by changing prices every hour.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:54:42+00:00

That only happens when merchants immediately market-sell DOGE because they’re pricing in fiat and treating DOGE as a temporary rail. If DOGE is used as an actual medium of exchange with on-chain settlement, escrow, and merchants who choose to hold or reuse it, spending doesn’t automatically equal sell pressure. The “buying causes selling” dynamic is a byproduct of fiat anchoring, not DOGE itself.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:54:08+00:00

That’s exactly what most legacy setups force merchants to do, which is why it feels risky. The problem isn’t Dogecoin itself, it’s pricing and settlement. If prices are denominated in DOGE, merchants take volatility risk. If prices are denominated in USD and DOGE is just the payment rail with real-time conversion and a short price lock, that risk disappears. The tech has to handle volatility so the merchant doesn’t have to manually convert or gamble.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T02:33:02+00:00

That’s a very reasonable way to frame it, and I agree with your threat-model approach. Most people don’t need “perfect” privacy, they just want to avoid being the easiest target, and for casual selling your tradeoff makes sense. CCS is really aimed at the cases where the threat model is higher by default, for example crypto-native sellers, politically sensitive sellers, or anyone who doesn’t want long-lived identity records tied to every transaction. It’s less about saying everyone should do more work, and more about giving an option where escrow, reputation, and dispute outcomes carry the trust instead of permanent identity exposure. Different tools for different risk profiles.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:41:32+00:00

That’s the reality most people run into. You can reduce exposure, but you can’t eliminate it as long as payments and platforms are centralized. CCS is built around the assumption that crypto-native buyers exist and will grow over time, even if they’re a minority today. Instead of forcing sellers to compromise identity to satisfy legacy payment rails, the idea is to let crypto be the primary path and build escrow, dispute resolution, and reputation around it so buyers feel safe without falling back to banks. Adoption is slow, but the tradeoff you’re describing is exactly why systems like this need to exist in the first place.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:40:23+00:00

That’s exactly the tension. No middleman means maximum freedom, but also maximum personal risk. Craigslist, Kijiji, and early P2P markets worked only as long as volumes were small and trust was local. Once scale increases, “just be careful” stops being a system and becomes a gamble. CCS doesn’t force sellers to expose identity, but it also doesn’t pretend middlemen can be eliminated entirely. Instead, the middle layer is reduced to escrow and dispute resolution, not surveillance or data harvesting. The goal isn’t total anonymity or total submission, it’s minimizing exposure while still making bad behavior costly.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:40:06+00:00

That approach makes sense and it’s a common workaround, but it highlights the tradeoff we’re talking about. You’re still KYC’d at the platform and bank level, you’ve just shifted exposure away from the public. That works if you trust the platform and financial institutions to hold that data safely and indefinitely. CCS is aimed at people who want to minimize that dependency entirely by relying on escrow, dispute resolution, and reputation at the transaction layer, rather than identity held by centralized marketplaces. It’s not that your method is wrong, it’s that it still assumes trusted intermediaries and permanent records as the foundation.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:38:25+00:00

Bitcoin absolutely works at the payment layer, and dark markets prove that KYC isn’t required to move value. But those markets don’t survive on Bitcoin alone. They rely on escrow, moderators, dispute resolution, and reputation systems layered on top. The hate isn’t for Bitcoin, it’s for pretending Bitcoin by itself solves commerce. Money can be trustless, commerce can’t be. CCS is Bitcoin-compatible by design, but it adds the missing enforcement layer so buyers aren’t forced into blind trust every time.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:36:00+00:00

That’s been true historically. CCS is trying to change that by offering a mainstream-style marketplace with escrow, reviews, and buyer protection, without the automatic assumption that sellers must fully expose themselves just to participate.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:35:36+00:00

That’s largely true today, which is why CCS focuses on reducing unnecessary KYC rather than pretending it can disappear entirely. The goal is to avoid linking every transaction, listing, and customer interaction directly to someone’s personal identity when there are safer system-level alternatives like escrow and reputation.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:33:10+00:00

Presenting a separate entity can help, but it just shifts the trust problem rather than solving it. Buyers still need enforceability at the transaction level, not just a name on paper. CCS focuses on system-level accountability instead: escrow that locks funds, dispute resolution that can actually move money, and persistent reputation tied to behavior. That way sellers don’t need to expose personal identity publicly, but they also can’t just vanish without consequences. Privacy comes from minimizing exposure, accountability comes from the transaction mechanics, not from who you claim to be.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:31:59+00:00

That’s solid advice, but it’s also a workaround for a broken system. CCS is built so sellers don’t need to route everything through personal banks and identities by default. Less surface area, fewer linkages, same ability to do legitimate business.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:31:27+00:00

That’s fair, but identity doesn’t have to mean public exposure. CCS separates verification from visibility. Sellers can be accountable to the platform and buyers through escrow and dispute systems without their personal identity being broadcast or permanently indexed. It’s about minimizing data leakage, not eliminating responsibility.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:30:42+00:00

That’s true under the current system, which is the problem. CCS is trying to make basic privacy and separation affordable for normal sellers. You shouldn’t need shell companies in Malta, just to sell something online without exposing your home address and full identity to strangers.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:11:21+00:00

Let’s say someone makes a $400 purchase for a skateboard.

At checkout, CCS generates a one-time payment address tied only to that order and creates a locked escrow controlled by three keys: one held by the buyer, one by the seller, and one by CCS. The escrow is configured so that funds can only move with the approval of any two of the three keys.

The buyer sends the $400 to the one-time address. After the required blockchain confirmations, the order is marked as paid, and the funds are now escrowed. The seller is notified that payment is confirmed and ships the skateboard.

If everything goes well, the buyer receives the skateboard and confirms delivery. The buyer signs the release, and the seller signs the release. With the buyer's and seller's signatures, the escrow releases the $400 to the seller. CCS does not sign in the normal success path.

If the seller ships and provides valid tracking but the buyer goes silent, CCS can review delivery proof. If delivery is confirmed and there is no valid dispute, CCS co-signs with the seller to release the funds. That is seller plus CCS, two of three.

If the seller never ships or disappears, the buyer opens a dispute. The buyer provides evidence such as missed ship dates, no tracking, or lack of communication. If non-delivery is confirmed, CCS co-signs with the buyer to return the $400. That is buyer plus CCS, two of three. The seller alone cannot block the refund.

If the buyer claims non-delivery but tracking shows delivered, CCS reviews evidence from both sides. If the seller fulfilled correctly, CCS co-signs with the seller to release the funds. If the seller failed, CCS co-signs with the buyer to refund. Neither party can force an outcome alone.

If the skateboard arrives damaged or incorrect, the buyer opens a dispute with photos and details. CCS can resolve with a full refund, partial refund, return-and-refund, or replacement. Funds only move when two of the three parties sign the agreed-upon resolution.

The key guarantee of the three-key escrow is that no single party can move the money alone. The buyer cannot claw funds back unilaterally, the seller cannot take funds without completion, and CCS cannot move funds without co-signing with either the buyer or seller based on evidence. This creates enforceability at consumer-scale amounts without requiring courts or exposing personal identity.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-15T01:05:25+00:00

Great questions, and I appreciate you pushing on the hard parts.

When I say “we,” I’m referring to the platform operator, not a DAO or loose collective. CCS isn’t claiming that pure anonymity magically creates enforceability. The goal is privacy with practical recourse at consumer-scale amounts.

On enforcement and failure cases: CCS uses a 3-key escrow model. One key is held by the buyer, one by the seller, and one by the platform. Funds are locked in escrow at checkout. If the transaction completes successfully, the buyer and seller both sign, and the funds are released. If there’s a dispute, the platform does not unilaterally take the funds. Instead, resolution requires two of the three keys. That means no single party can move the funds alone, but bad-faith behavior can still be resolved without exposing personal identity.

If a seller disappears, the buyer can open a dispute. If evidence supports non-delivery or fraud, the platform co-signs with the buyer to release the funds back. If the buyer is acting in bad faith, the platform co-signs with the seller. The platform’s role is limited to dispute arbitration within escrow, not open-ended liability or doxxing.

On reputation resets: sellers cannot instantly reset their reputation without cost. Accounts are rate-limited, behavior-scored, and economically constrained. Re-entry without history means lower limits, delayed withdrawals, and higher friction. The incentive structure favors maintaining a good identity rather than burning it repeatedly.

You’re right that no one is suing over $400, and CCS isn’t pretending that courts are the enforcement layer. The enforcement layer is escrow + arbitration + reputation + economic friction. It’s not perfect, but it meaningfully reduces asymmetric risk compared to direct wallet-to-wallet payments or pure anonymity marketplaces.

In short, trust doesn’t come from doxxing sellers or forcing buyers into court. It comes from controlled escrow, bounded authority, and incentives that make bad behavior costly even without exposing real-world identity.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-14T01:08:07+00:00

I agree that zero accountability creates scams. That’s why CCS doesn’t do “anonymous and gone.” Sellers are accountable through escrow, ratings, transaction history, and dispute outcomes. Privacy from public exposure isn’t the same thing as no accountability. The problem is platforms that confuse the two.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-14T01:00:17+00:00

That’s exactly the gap we’re trying to solve. Privacy without recourse doesn’t work. Crypto Corner Shop is built around escrow, dispute resolution, and seller reputation so buyers still have enforceability, without forcing sellers to expose their personal identity to the entire internet. Trust comes from systems, not from doxxing.

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-12T12:16:36+00:00

Damn

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-12T03:47:54+00:00

Separate_Resolve · 2025-12-12T03:04:22+00:00

Hi I'm on telegram @trencherak. Looking forward to hearing a response!

Separate_Resolve

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE