4 ms·

blender.io is a centralized service run by people which AML laws can target, since they are facilitating third party transactions, some of which are criminal in

blender.io is a centralized service run by people which AML laws can target, since they are facilitating third party transactions, some of which are criminal in origin. Tornado.cash is decentralized software, and there is no law that can be envoked to prohibit people from using it for their own transactions, unless it can be proven their own transactions are illicit in origin, in which case they can already be booked for the original crime. This is of course how it should be. We don't need AML laws as any case of money laundering would require an underlying crime that generated the illicit revenue, and proving that crime occurred - which is a prerequisite for proving money laundering occurred - would be sufficient to put that criminal behind bars. And what we have now are financial surveillance laws misnamed anti-money laundering laws. Their purpose is not to criminalize actual money laundering, which is redundant for reasons just explained. Their purpose is to criminalize services that protect their clients' financial privacy, by: * not demanding they disclose private financial information to prove their transactions are non-criminal in origin before facilitating them (providing presumption of innocence) * not requiring them to disclose personal information (KYC) before facilitating their transactions, and * not reporting that personal information to government surveillance agencies without a warrant (e.g. FinCEN reporting requirements). I think every one welcomes stopping the flow of illicit revenue, but efforts to accomplish that should not come at the expense of core principles of a free society, like the right to privacy, and the presumption of innocence. This is especially so given there is considerable evidence that so-called AML laws are highly ineffective despite all the costs they impose in both financial terms and in terms of basic rights: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1...

runnerup 4y ago
By using tornado.cash the cryptocurrency you feed it facilitates tornado.cash’s use by people who launder money. In effect, you are facilitating money laundering. I dont agree with it at all but I absolutely see the writing on the wall for “unhosted wallets” and Monero. The USA even somehow managed to nearly eliminate IRL cash transactions during the last two years — in Houston, most businesses have signs saying “due to ongoing coin shortage we cannot take cash”.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  To the best of my understanding, AML law, as currently written, doesn't work like that. It governs those who administer financial services. When originally written it did not apply to cash and was not conceived of with decentralized financial applications in mind. If the law applied as you suggest, any one using cash could be deemed to be facilitating money laundering by enlarging the pool of anonymized money that criminals use.
- vmception 4y ago
  I don’t think the treasury can sanction a smart contract or force financial instructions to absolutely reject transactions from one Do that court challenge
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    The can sanction the businesses using it, POS that touch it, and banks that it was withdrawn from.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      That would be an extraordinary stretch of the sanctions law, comparable to sanctioning any business that uses cash, by virtue of its effect of expanding the anonymity set that uses cash and thereby assisting sanctioned entities in concealing their transactions.
      - nivertech 4y ago
        The comparison with cash is flawed for 2 reasons: 1. Unlike so called "cryptocurrencies" you can't easily do cross-border transactions with large amount of cash. 2. Not sure about US and its states and territories, but in many countries in the world cash transactions are limited to relatively low amounts. And these amounts are shrinking every year.
        CryptoPunk 4y ago

runnerup 4y ago

By using tornado.cash the cryptocurrency you feed it facilitates tornado.cash’s use by people who launder money. In effect, you are facilitating money laundering. I dont agree with it at all but I absolutely see the writing on the wall for “unhosted wallets” and Monero. The USA even somehow managed to nearly eliminate IRL cash transactions during the last two years — in Houston, most businesses have signs saying “due to ongoing coin shortage we cannot take cash”.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
To the best of my understanding, AML law, as currently written, doesn't work like that. It governs those who administer financial services. When originally written it did not apply to cash and was not conceived of with decentralized financial applications in mind. If the law applied as you suggest, any one using cash could be deemed to be facilitating money laundering by enlarging the pool of anonymized money that criminals use.
vmception 4y ago
I don’t think the treasury can sanction a smart contract or force financial instructions to absolutely reject transactions from one Do that court challenge
- withinboredom 4y ago
  The can sanction the businesses using it, POS that touch it, and banks that it was withdrawn from.
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    That would be an extraordinary stretch of the sanctions law, comparable to sanctioning any business that uses cash, by virtue of its effect of expanding the anonymity set that uses cash and thereby assisting sanctioned entities in concealing their transactions.
    - nivertech 4y ago
      The comparison with cash is flawed for 2 reasons: 1. Unlike so called "cryptocurrencies" you can't easily do cross-border transactions with large amount of cash. 2. Not sure about US and its states and territories, but in many countries in the world cash transactions are limited to relatively low amounts. And these amounts are shrinking every year.
      - CryptoPunk 4y ago