4 ms·

Tornado Cash is a protocol. It targets EVM, and has been deployed on Ethereum, Optimism, Avalanche, Polygon and other networks. It happens to be open source, th

Tornado Cash is a protocol. It targets EVM, and has been deployed on Ethereum, Optimism, Avalanche, Polygon and other networks. It happens to be open source, the code was mirrored on GitHub for research and contributions. They are setting a precedent that any forks or similar implementations of this protocol will also be sanctioned. A comparison would be sanctioning the Matrix protocol because it facilitates end-to-end encrypted communication for terrorists.

zaphar 4y ago
If the matrix project was run by terrorists then your comparison would be accurate. It is not however. Tornado Cash however is run by a group with the express purpose of money laundering which is a crime. This difference is important and is why they are now sanctioned and Matrix is not.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  If we want to talk about important differences, then you need to understand the difference between money-laundering and privacy. In short, if you are not concealing the source of your funds to conceal a crime being committed, you are not guilty of money-laundering. It's that simple. KYC laws apply to banks and corporations, not individuals and not protocols and not code. Privacy is not against the law, and neither is deploying a privacy tool that happens to be used by criminals. The comparison to matrix is surprisingly apt here. I have no doubt that criminal activity is facilitated by matrix, but the idea that they are responsible for that is ridiculous.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    If you are mixing your money with known criminals so that they can hide their money then you are money laundering even if you have other legitimate reasons for hiding your own money. The creative fiction that you can't know you are mixing it with known criminals is just that. A fiction. It has been known for a long time now that these mixers are used by known criminals. Continuing to use and contribute to that means you are knowingly helping to launder their money.
    - whatisweb3 4y ago
      It is known that criminals use E2EE, ergo anybody using this technology is knowingly helping a criminal. what a bad take.
      - Nursie 4y ago
        Those aren't remotely equivalent, given that mixers mix up their inputs to obscure their outputs. By using E2EE yourself, you are not actively giving cover in the same way.
        whatisweb3 4y ago
        E2EE and onion routing protocols use similar cryptography to "mix" and "obscure" inputs and outputs. It is very much the same approach, just that we don't call it "message laundering" because we as society have come to appreciate private communication. I would tell you to just look at the Tornado Cash code yourself to verify this, but alas...
        Nursie 4y ago
        E2EE generally doesn't obscure who is talking to who AFAICT. Onion routing does, sure. Ethically I find that area very much a double-edged sword. It's great for privacy and people evading speech-hostile regimes, but it does also enable trading and propagation of CSAM etc. It's why I've never run a Tor or Freenet (does that still exist?) node, I don't want to support that stuff with my resources.
        whatisweb3 4y ago
        E2EE obscures everything, that is why it is called end-to-end. If Alice and Bob and John and Piper are all communicating with pseudonymous names in a Matrix room, you do not know who is talking to who or what they are talking about.
        4y ago
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  Tornado cash is not run by terrorists. The express purpose of the tool is privacy, and that is what it is being used for. The express purpose of an end to end encrypted chat protocol is to provide privacy. If users of it engage in criminal behavior that does not mean the express purpose of the protocol is also criminal.
- px43 4y ago
  WTF are you talking about? I know them personally and have made my own various contributions to Tornado over the years. They're a group of people who think public blockchains put people at risk of privacy violations, so they built tools to help people transact on blockchains in a way more similar to cash. It's basically an HTTPS layer. You roll up some set denomination of ETH or whatever into a zero knowledge note, which can then be treated like cash. Anyone who has the private key can generate a request to send the note somewhere else, and there's nothing linking the creator of the note to the spender of the note. Never once has it been marketed towards criminals, or have any of the team made any indication that it was build for criminal purposes. It appears it was actually in heavy use for three years or so before Lazarus apparently used it for the first time, which is why the sanctions were slapped on it. Fuck Lazarus, but also the idea that anything tech they use becomes illegal is insanity.
probably_wrong 4y ago
You can still use the Tornado protocol for handling double-blind experiments in a lab without fear of being sanctioned. You cannot launder money, though. This is forbidden regardless of which method you use (crypto, art, car washes, etc). These sanctions are saying "we consider this specific use of this specific algorithm to be illegal, so if you interact with it via these wallets you will be sanctioned too". But they are not saying "this algorithm is illegal".
- bluGill 4y ago
  Maybe, but you will need to prove to the courts that labs actually use that algorithm that way. I don't think any are doing that, though I'll admit to not knowing much about how double blind studies are run in the real world. Even then, the algorithm and Tornado are not the same thing. It seems unlikely you can use Tornado itself for this purpose, even if the algorithm itself is useful.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    I think if the algorithm were deployed alongside a processes for combating money laundering. The press release specifically calls out a lack of efforts to block known bad actors and illegal funds from using their system: > Despite public assurances otherwise, Tornado Cash has repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risks. So you probably can provide a mixing service if you can find ways to reasonably limit money laundering on it. This would probably be antithetical to the decentralization principles built into Tornado, but might allow continued legal operations.

zaphar 4y ago

If the matrix project was run by terrorists then your comparison would be accurate. It is not however. Tornado Cash however is run by a group with the express purpose of money laundering which is a crime. This difference is important and is why they are now sanctioned and Matrix is not.

Karunamon 4y ago
If we want to talk about important differences, then you need to understand the difference between money-laundering and privacy. In short, if you are not concealing the source of your funds to conceal a crime being committed, you are not guilty of money-laundering. It's that simple. KYC laws apply to banks and corporations, not individuals and not protocols and not code. Privacy is not against the law, and neither is deploying a privacy tool that happens to be used by criminals. The comparison to matrix is surprisingly apt here. I have no doubt that criminal activity is facilitated by matrix, but the idea that they are responsible for that is ridiculous.
- zaphar 4y ago
  If you are mixing your money with known criminals so that they can hide their money then you are money laundering even if you have other legitimate reasons for hiding your own money. The creative fiction that you can't know you are mixing it with known criminals is just that. A fiction. It has been known for a long time now that these mixers are used by known criminals. Continuing to use and contribute to that means you are knowingly helping to launder their money.
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    It is known that criminals use E2EE, ergo anybody using this technology is knowingly helping a criminal. what a bad take.
    - Nursie 4y ago
      Those aren't remotely equivalent, given that mixers mix up their inputs to obscure their outputs. By using E2EE yourself, you are not actively giving cover in the same way.
      - whatisweb3 4y ago
        E2EE and onion routing protocols use similar cryptography to "mix" and "obscure" inputs and outputs. It is very much the same approach, just that we don't call it "message laundering" because we as society have come to appreciate private communication. I would tell you to just look at the Tornado Cash code yourself to verify this, but alas...
        Nursie 4y ago
        E2EE generally doesn't obscure who is talking to who AFAICT. Onion routing does, sure. Ethically I find that area very much a double-edged sword. It's great for privacy and people evading speech-hostile regimes, but it does also enable trading and propagation of CSAM etc. It's why I've never run a Tor or Freenet (does that still exist?) node, I don't want to support that stuff with my resources.
        whatisweb3 4y ago
        E2EE obscures everything, that is why it is called end-to-end. If Alice and Bob and John and Piper are all communicating with pseudonymous names in a Matrix room, you do not know who is talking to who or what they are talking about.
        4y ago
whatisweb3 4y ago
Tornado cash is not run by terrorists. The express purpose of the tool is privacy, and that is what it is being used for. The express purpose of an end to end encrypted chat protocol is to provide privacy. If users of it engage in criminal behavior that does not mean the express purpose of the protocol is also criminal.
px43 4y ago
WTF are you talking about? I know them personally and have made my own various contributions to Tornado over the years. They're a group of people who think public blockchains put people at risk of privacy violations, so they built tools to help people transact on blockchains in a way more similar to cash. It's basically an HTTPS layer. You roll up some set denomination of ETH or whatever into a zero knowledge note, which can then be treated like cash. Anyone who has the private key can generate a request to send the note somewhere else, and there's nothing linking the creator of the note to the spender of the note. Never once has it been marketed towards criminals, or have any of the team made any indication that it was build for criminal purposes. It appears it was actually in heavy use for three years or so before Lazarus apparently used it for the first time, which is why the sanctions were slapped on it. Fuck Lazarus, but also the idea that anything tech they use becomes illegal is insanity.

probably_wrong 4y ago

You can still use the Tornado protocol for handling double-blind experiments in a lab without fear of being sanctioned. You cannot launder money, though. This is forbidden regardless of which method you use (crypto, art, car washes, etc). These sanctions are saying "we consider this specific use of this specific algorithm to be illegal, so if you interact with it via these wallets you will be sanctioned too". But they are not saying "this algorithm is illegal".

bluGill 4y ago
Maybe, but you will need to prove to the courts that labs actually use that algorithm that way. I don't think any are doing that, though I'll admit to not knowing much about how double blind studies are run in the real world. Even then, the algorithm and Tornado are not the same thing. It seems unlikely you can use Tornado itself for this purpose, even if the algorithm itself is useful.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  I think if the algorithm were deployed alongside a processes for combating money laundering. The press release specifically calls out a lack of efforts to block known bad actors and illegal funds from using their system: > Despite public assurances otherwise, Tornado Cash has repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risks. So you probably can provide a mixing service if you can find ways to reasonably limit money laundering on it. This would probably be antithetical to the decentralization principles built into Tornado, but might allow continued legal operations.