4 ms·

> After this ruling, that excuse no longer applies and that might dissuade a lot of people who might otherwise be tempted to run a mixer of their own. What is

by saurik 4y ago

> After this ruling, that excuse no longer applies and that might dissuade a lot of people who might otherwise be tempted to run a mixer of their own. What is interesting here, though, is that Tornado Cash doesn't run anything: they may as well not exist as an entity anymore. It also isn't a blockchain and doesn't have nodes: third parties thereby also don't run Tornado Cash. Tornado Cash, instead, is one of many random contracts executing on Ethereum (as well as third-party Ethereum-like constructs; some/many of those are pretty damned centralized, with servers that process and store transactions, so I am gong to concentrate on Ethereum itself as it is the most interesting). So, with the smart contract of Tornado Cash -- as Tornado Cash isn't a group of people or a company: it is just code -- having been sanctioned, if you are a miner and mine a block on Ethereum that includes a transaction that touches Tornado Cash, is that now illegal? I feel like this is how the concept of sanctions would normally play out in meat space with real people, to prevent the sanctioned services from being utilized. If so, and I think this is where it "gets good": let's say 99% of miners care about the sanctions, and 1% don't... when you mine a block, you choose a parent for that block; arguably now, if you actively chose to accept a parent block that includes a Tornado Cash transaction, that should also be illegal (due to being sanctioned).

60secs 4y ago
This is a great example of where the law hasn't caught up to smart contracts. We don't have a good framework in place for sanctioning contracts by address, contract itself, or by effect. I'm expecting a push toward laws will evolve to make calling mixers illegal, but that will likely hit some 1st amendment push back. If money is speech, then is it free if it has no privacy?
- Fatnino 4y ago
  Money is speech, speech is free, ergo money is free. Note: It is exceedingly rare for the free money to actually be so.
- trombone5000 4y ago
  > If money is speech, then is it free if it has no privacy? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it follows that every financial transaction is a 1st amendment issue, just because spending money to promote a message is protected.
WJW 4y ago
I can think of a few ways that more specific regulations could address this: - It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contracts from the sanctioned list, which can be downloaded from the Treasury web site and is updated regularly. This is very akin to how the sanctioned people list works currently. - The treasury will maintain a list of blockchain addresses that are known to contain tainted coins and all businesses need to verify they don't accept business when the payment comes from one of those. A little bit more tricky since you can send money from any wallet to any other one, but still this is how a lot of the current sanctions already work. You could imagine this being only applicable for companies with a banking or exchange license or something like that. Perhaps it would become a part of regular auditing done by accountancy companies. - (Possibly the most likely depending on how much lobbying the crypto industry manages to get in) Miners don't have to do anything, but all crypto exchanges with users in the USA (in this case, I'd expect the EU and other big jurisdictions to develop similar rules over time) are forbidden from transacting with a list of addresses belonging to contracts available from the Treasury. Options 2 and 3 are very similar, but 3 is scoped only to exchanges. Since the majority of users is not sophisticated enough to transact without exchanges, this seems like it would give the most bang for the buck for the Treasury. More sophisticated launderers could be tracked on a case-by-case basis if needed. One thing I think is not very likely to happen is for the Treasury to say: "Oh well! Those crypto rascals outsmarted us by running their money laundering smart contracts on the Eth VM, so we guess money laundering is fine now".
- amluto 4y ago
  I think an appropriate endgame would be an extension of #3: any regulated entity (e.g. an exchange) may not accept cryptocurrency which, anywhere in its history since the last time it came from a regulated entity, went through something sanctioned. This, of course, would mean that Monero would be right out. In general, most of the supposed value of cryptocurrency seems to be that everyone looks the other way when parties do things that look like or are illegal but take the money anyway. Functionality, cryptocurrency is very similar to e-gold, and I see no reason it should be allowed to do the same things just because it’s somewhat decentralized.
- Canada 4y ago
birdyrooster 4y ago
"if you are a miner and mine a block on Ethereum that includes a transaction that touches Tornado Cash, is that now illegal?" Seems pretty obvious from the statement that doing business that includes this Tornado Cash entity will infect your business with criminal liability.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  No entity. Decentralized smart contract. Reply again?
  - birdyrooster 4y ago
    Anything that exists and is uniquely distinguishable from other things is an entity. I didn't mean a corporate entity or government entity, I meant an entity on the Ethereum network in the form of a smart contract.
he_is_legend 4y ago
Or maybe, just maybe, ETH will soon be defacto illegal. Edit: there is some "sort of" precedent. DeCSS was illegal.
PastInMyPussy 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by saurik 4y ago

60secs 4y ago

This is a great example of where the law hasn't caught up to smart contracts. We don't have a good framework in place for sanctioning contracts by address, contract itself, or by effect. I'm expecting a push toward laws will evolve to make calling mixers illegal, but that will likely hit some 1st amendment push back. If money is speech, then is it free if it has no privacy?

Fatnino 4y ago
Money is speech, speech is free, ergo money is free. Note: It is exceedingly rare for the free money to actually be so.
trombone5000 4y ago
> If money is speech, then is it free if it has no privacy? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it follows that every financial transaction is a 1st amendment issue, just because spending money to promote a message is protected.

WJW 4y ago

I can think of a few ways that more specific regulations could address this: - It will not be legal for miners to run/"execute code on behalf of" smart contracts from the sanctioned list, which can be downloaded from the Treasury web site and is updated regularly. This is very akin to how the sanctioned people list works currently. - The treasury will maintain a list of blockchain addresses that are known to contain tainted coins and all businesses need to verify they don't accept business when the payment comes from one of those. A little bit more tricky since you can send money from any wallet to any other one, but still this is how a lot of the current sanctions already work. You could imagine this being only applicable for companies with a banking or exchange license or something like that. Perhaps it would become a part of regular auditing done by accountancy companies. - (Possibly the most likely depending on how much lobbying the crypto industry manages to get in) Miners don't have to do anything, but all crypto exchanges with users in the USA (in this case, I'd expect the EU and other big jurisdictions to develop similar rules over time) are forbidden from transacting with a list of addresses belonging to contracts available from the Treasury. Options 2 and 3 are very similar, but 3 is scoped only to exchanges. Since the majority of users is not sophisticated enough to transact without exchanges, this seems like it would give the most bang for the buck for the Treasury. More sophisticated launderers could be tracked on a case-by-case basis if needed. One thing I think is not very likely to happen is for the Treasury to say: "Oh well! Those crypto rascals outsmarted us by running their money laundering smart contracts on the Eth VM, so we guess money laundering is fine now".

amluto 4y ago
I think an appropriate endgame would be an extension of #3: any regulated entity (e.g. an exchange) may not accept cryptocurrency which, anywhere in its history since the last time it came from a regulated entity, went through something sanctioned. This, of course, would mean that Monero would be right out. In general, most of the supposed value of cryptocurrency seems to be that everyone looks the other way when parties do things that look like or are illegal but take the money anyway. Functionality, cryptocurrency is very similar to e-gold, and I see no reason it should be allowed to do the same things just because it’s somewhat decentralized.
Canada 4y ago

birdyrooster 4y ago

"if you are a miner and mine a block on Ethereum that includes a transaction that touches Tornado Cash, is that now illegal?" Seems pretty obvious from the statement that doing business that includes this Tornado Cash entity will infect your business with criminal liability.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
No entity. Decentralized smart contract. Reply again?
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  Anything that exists and is uniquely distinguishable from other things is an entity. I didn't mean a corporate entity or government entity, I meant an entity on the Ethereum network in the form of a smart contract.

he_is_legend 4y ago

Or maybe, just maybe, ETH will soon be defacto illegal. Edit: there is some "sort of" precedent. DeCSS was illegal.

PastInMyPussy 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]