Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 921–941 | Cite as

The Network Structure of Opioid Distribution on a Darknet Cryptomarket

  • Scott W. Duxbury
  • Dana L. Haynie
Original Paper



The current study is the first to examine the network structure of an encrypted online drug distribution network. It examines (1) the global network structure, (2) the local network structure, and (3) identifies those vendor characteristics that best explain variation in the network structure. In doing so, it evaluates the role of trust in online drug markets.


The study draws on a unique dataset of transaction level data from an encrypted online drug market. Structural measures and community detection analysis are used to characterize and investigate the network structure. Exponential random graph modeling is used to evaluate which vendor characteristics explain variation in purchasing patterns.


Vendors’ trustworthiness explains more variation in the overall network structure than the affordability of vendor products or the diversity of vendor product listings. This results in a highly localized network structure with a few key vendors accounting for most transactions.


The results indicate that vendors’ trustworthiness is a better predictor of vendor selection than product diversity or affordability. These results illuminate the internal market dynamics that sustain digital drug markets and highlight the importance of examining how new anonymizing technologies shape global drug distribution networks.


Drug distribution Online drug markets Social networks Trust Tor network 



We would like to thank Benjamin Gilbert for assistance in data coding, and David Melamed for helpful methodological suggestions.


  1. Aldridge J, Décary-Hétu D (2014) Not an ‘Ebay for Drugs’: The cryptomarket ‘Silk Road’ as a paradigm shifting criminal innovation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2436643
  2. Aldridge J, Decary-Hetu D (2016) Hidden wholesale: the drug diffusing capacity of online drug cryptomarkets. Int J Drug Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen M, Felson M (2010) The impact of co-offending. Br J Criminol 50(1):66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker WE, Faulkner RR (1993) The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. Am Sociol Rev 58:837–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barratt MJ (2012) Silk road: EBay for drugs. Addiction 107(3):683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barratt MJ, Aldridge Judith (2016) Everything you always wanted to know about drug cryptomarkets* (*but were afraid to ask). Int J Drug Policy 35:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barratt MJ, Lenton S, Allen M (2013) Internet content regulation, public drug websites and the growth in hidden Internet services. Drugs Educ Prevent Policy 20:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barratt Monica J, Ferris Jason A, Winstock Adam R (2014) Use of silk road, the online drug marketplace, in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Addiction 109:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barratt MJ, Lenton S, Maddox A, Allen M (2016a) ‘What if you live on top of a bakery and you like cakes?’ Drug use and harm trajectories before, during, and after the emergence of the Silk Road. Int J Drug Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barratt MJ, Ferris JA, Winstock Adam R (2016b) Safer scoring? Cryptomarkets, social supply and drug market violence. Int J Drug Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caulkins J, Reuter P (2010) How drug enforcement affects drug prices. Crime Justice 39(1):213–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coomber R (2004) Drug use and drug market intersections. Addict Res Theory 12(6):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Bie JL, de Poot CJ, Freilich JD, Chermak SM (2017) Changing organizational structures of jihadist networks in the Netherlands. Social Networks. 48:270–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decary-Hetu D, Laferriere D (2015) Discrediting vendors in online criminal markets. In: Maim Ali, Bichler Gisela (eds) Disrupting criminal networks: network analysis in crime prevention. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  15. Decary-Hetu D, Paquet-Clouston M, Aldridge J (2016) Going international? Risk taking by cryptomarket drug vendors. Int J Drug Policy 35:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekmann A, Jann B, Przepiorka W, Wherli S (2014) Reputation formation and the evolution of cooperation in anonymous online markets. Am Soc Rev 79:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolliver DS (2015) Evaluating drug trafficking on the Tor Network: Silk Road 2, the sequel. Int J Drug Policy 26:1113–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dolliver DS, Kenney JL (2016) Characteristics of drug vendors on the Tor network: a cryptomarket comparison. Vict Offenders 11(4):600–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dupont B, Cote A, Savine C, Decary-Hetu D (2016) The ecology of trust among hackers. Glob Crime 17(2):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eurobarometer (2014) Young people and drugs: Results per country. Retrieved from
  21. Hunter DR, Goodreau SM, Handcock MS (2008) Goodness of fit of social network models. J Am Stat Assoc 103(481):248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy D (2008) Deterrence and crime prevention: reconsidering the prospect of sanction. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kreager DA, Schaefer DR, Bouchard M, Haynie DL, Wakefield S, Young J, Zajac G (2016) Toward a criminology of inmate networks”. Justice Q 33:1000–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs V (2001) Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections 24(3):43–52Google Scholar
  26. Lusher D, Ackland R (2011). A relational hyperlink analysis of an online social movement. J Soc Struct 12(5):1–35Google Scholar
  27. Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G (2013) Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Morselli C, Giguere C, Petit K (2007) The efficiency/security trade-off in criminal networks. Soc Netw 29(1):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Natarajan M (2006) Understanding the structure of a large heroin distribution network: a quantitative analysis of qualitative data. J Quant Criminol 22:171–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8577–8582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: an introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Papachristos A (2009) Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am J Sociol 115:74–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papachristos A (2014) The network structure of crime. Sociol Compass 8(4):347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Papachristos A, Hureau D, Braga A (2013) The corner and the crew: the influence of geography and social networks and gang violence. Am Soc Rev 78(3):417–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pons P, Latapy M (2005) Computing communities in large networks using random walks. In: Physics and society. arXiv:physics/0512106v1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raab J, Milward BH (2003) Dark networks as problems. J Public Adm Res Theor 13(4):413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robins G, Pattison P, Woolcock J (2004) Missing data in networks: exponential random graph (p*) models for networks with non-respondents. Soc Netw 26(3):257–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Netw 29:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaefer DR, Rodriguez N, Decker S (2014) The role of neighborhood context in youth co-offending. Criminology 52(1):117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaefer DR, Bouchard M, Young JTN, Kreager DA (2017) Friends in locked places: an investigation of prison inmate network structure. Soc Netw. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith CM, Papachristos AV (2016) Trust thy crooked neighbor: multiplexity in Chicago organized crime networks. Am Sociol Rev 81(4):644–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Snijders TA (2002) Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of exponential random graph models. J Soc Struct 3(2):1–40Google Scholar
  44. Soska K, Christin N (2015). Measuring the longitudinal evolution of the online anonymous marketplace ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the 24th Usenix security symposiumGoogle Scholar
  45. Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stephen A, Toubia O (2009) Explaining the power-law degree distribution in a social commerce network. Soc Netw 31(4):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tenti V, Morselli C (2014) Group co-offending networks in Italy’s illegal drug trade. Crime Law Soc Change 62:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tremblay P (1993) Searching for suitable co-offenders. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, pp 17–36Google Scholar
  49. Tzanetakis M, Kamphausen G, Werse B, von Laufenberg R (2016) The transparency paradox. Building trust, resolving disputes, and optimizing logistics on conventional and online drug markets. Int J Drug Policy 35:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2016) World drug report.
  51. Van Buskirk J, Roxburgh A, Bruno R, Sundresan N, Lenton S, Sutherland R, Whittaker E, Sindicich N, Matthews A, Butler K, Burns L (2016) Characterising dark net marketplace purchasers in a sample of regular psychostimulant users. Int J Drug Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Hout MC, Bingham T (2013) ‘Silk Road’, the virtual drug marketplace: a single case study of user experiences. Int J Drug Policy 24:385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Hout MC, Bingham T (2014) Responsible vendors, intelligent consumers: Silk Road, the online revolution in drug trading. Int J Drug Policy 25:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Von Lampe K, Johansen PO (2004) Organised crime and trust: on the conceptualization of trust in the context of criminal networks. Glob Crime 6:159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walsh C (2011) Drugs, the internet, and change. J Psychoact Drugs 43(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang C, Butts CT, Hipp JR, Jose R, Lakon C (2016) Multiple imputation for missing edge data: a predictive evaluation method with application to Add Health. Soc Netw 45:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weerman F (2003) Co-offending as social exchange. Br J Criminol 43(2):398–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wood G (2016) The structure and vulnerability of a drug trafficking collaboration network. Soc Netw 48:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations