7 ms·

Someone Is Trolling Celebs by Sending ETH from Tornado Cash

91 points by spenvo 4y ago

jrm4 4y ago
Weird to call it a "troll," like Tor is trolling servers to send data or something. It's a strategy.
nodesocket 4y ago
How are addresses linked to celebrities know about and confirmed? e.g. Jimmy Fallon and Dave Chappelle? Unless the address is made public and linked to the person.
- legobmw99 4y ago
  Most celebs who publicly claimed to own an NFT de-anonymized their addresses as a result, no?
  - drcongo 4y ago
    This makes it all the more delicious.
- addingnumbers 4y ago
  Don't know about Chappelle, but Fallon has his ethereum name service (ENS) address "Fallon.eth" in the "Name" field of his verified twitter account profile.
- drexlspivey 4y ago
  Fallon’s screen name on twitter is Fallon.eth
- pwinnski 4y ago
  This is how thinking that crypto is in any way anything like anonymous trips people up. As soon as you claim ownership of an NFT, your address is known.
  - solveit 4y ago
    Ethereum is pseudonymous. Society should be used to pseudonymity by now, it's only been decades since everyone had accounts on everything. It's honestly astonishing how badly people are confused about online identity. (Side remark: Some crypto are in fact actually anonymous. The canonical example is Monero, where sending/receiving addresses, transaction amounts, and address balances are all obfuscated.)
tgv 4y ago
That's not trolling, that's trying to get other people to fight the US justice department for you. This "troll" probably has a lot riding on Tornado Cash. It's not the kind of stunt pulled by someone without interest.
- chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
  Or maybe they just have an interest in privacy. There's a lot of dedicated crypto nerds out there with money to blow like this.
  - Analemma_ 4y ago
    If some rando decided to bring the Feds down on my head, I certainly would not be interested in fighting for their cause. I'd probably go "fuck you" and oppose whatever they wanted purely out of spite. If this is being done by an ideologue and not a troll, it's a pretty dumb one.
    - serial_dev 4y ago
      If a rando can bring the Feds down on my head without me doing anything, by only using public information about me, then I would be more frustrated by the "regulatory mess", this should not be possible. Basically: > The gag effectively points out the absurdity of such sanctions for users receiving funds from blacklisted addresses that they have no power to decline.
      - telchar 4y ago
        It seems to me this highlights a flaw in the payment system - the inability to decline. Am I understanding that right? You really can’t refuse an ETH transfer?
        throwaway98797 4y ago
        correct is it a bug or a feature?
Ekaros 4y ago
It is nice demonstration how there is issues with this whole sanctioning of such service... Not that it will lead to anything. BTW, is there any wallets known to be owned by government agencies?
- osrec 4y ago
  I'm sure El Salvador will have a few...
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Crypto is proving to be unsanctionable. If this is true, I don't think it's a bull case. Specifically - with this issue - I think it becomes easy to get "unsanctioned" - transfer a Federal Wallet the amount of crypto received from a sanctioned wallet - until then - the wallet remains on the banned list - and any wallet that interacts with it becomes banned, too. You can build a graph and un-ban wallets when one of the banned wallets finally transfers the money to the Federal Wallet and becomes un-banned. And more specifically - with the troll case - you can simply only ban wallets after a specific dollar amount from banned wallets has been transferred to it. Someone trolls you by sending you $10 of poisoned Eth? Who cares. 10,000,000 wallets troll you by sending you $9 of poisoned Eth? Suspicious...
- tempsy 4y ago
  Circle/USDC immediately blacklisted every sanctioned address. Reality is USDC is so intertwined with Eth/Defi at this point that the Feds can effectively censor Eth through Circle. So while I agree this demonstration is silly it’s more a distraction from the fact that the Feds can enforce censorship via this highly centralized US-based stablecoin which has become so central to defi activity across many major protocols
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  The Bitcoin wallets that were seized from Ross Ulbricht
labrador 4y ago
One thing I don't understand is that crypto and web3 are about taking back control, but anyone can drop anything in my wallet. Is that correct? It makes me anxious about participating because I can't control that.
- silverlake 4y ago
  Anyone can transfer money into your bank account.
  - belltaco 4y ago
    Not from a sanctioned entity. Banks block transactions to and from those.
    - ptudan 4y ago
      Right, and if you want to use a CEX wallet, go ahead. They will block sanctioned addresses and move those funds into a frozen account for the feds.
- Ferret7446 4y ago
  Anyone can drop anything in your bank account, are you anxious about that?
  - echelon 4y ago
    Performing an ACH will get your account picked up by the FinCEN and KYC dragnet. These are in no way comparable. I'm getting tired of these dishonest "crypto is the same" arguments. It's not even close. Banking is well regulated and monitored. There are mechanisms to protect people, rout out bad actors, and legal means to reverse transactions. Crypto is a "code is law" wild west, full of sharp edges and irreversible hacks and scams.
    - gjs278 4y ago
Cobragri 4y ago
GRIN MW has interactive transactions. Incoming transactions can be rejected-approved , you are in total control of your wallet. https://docs.grin.mw/about-grin/transactions/ https://docs.grin.mw/about-grin/transactions/
compsciphd 4y ago
hah, I called this months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31476551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31476551 "As a simple police matter. we can track the flow of bitcoin very easily. Imagine we created a law, one is not allowed to interact with any "blacklisted/tainted" account/wallet and any account/wallet that interacts with a blacklisted/tainted account/walletn after its been marked as blacklisted/tainted is automatically blacklisted/tainted itself (easy to determine in bitcoin). I'd hazard to say, that such a policy would have a quick impact on bitcoin's valuation. now, at first glance, this type of law might seem reasonable - if an account has been marked as doing illegal actions, any account that interacts with it is benefiting from said illegal actions. However, this would setup a world of griefers. In bitcoin (I believe) you don't really have the ability to accept or reject transfers. if someone transfers coins to my wallet's address, it will be mine. Imagine someone who gains access to a blacklisted wallet and just transfers tiny amounts to all the addresses that contain massive sums of bitcoin, thereby tainting it all. "
olliej 4y ago
Would send celebs meth or weed in the mail also count as trolling?

91 points by spenvo 4y ago

jrm4 4y ago

Weird to call it a "troll," like Tor is trolling servers to send data or something. It's a strategy.

How are addresses linked to celebrities know about and confirmed? e.g. Jimmy Fallon and Dave Chappelle? Unless the address is made public and linked to the person.

legobmw99 4y ago
Most celebs who publicly claimed to own an NFT de-anonymized their addresses as a result, no?
- drcongo 4y ago
  This makes it all the more delicious.
addingnumbers 4y ago
Don't know about Chappelle, but Fallon has his ethereum name service (ENS) address "Fallon.eth" in the "Name" field of his verified twitter account profile.
drexlspivey 4y ago
Fallon’s screen name on twitter is Fallon.eth
pwinnski 4y ago
This is how thinking that crypto is in any way anything like anonymous trips people up. As soon as you claim ownership of an NFT, your address is known.
- solveit 4y ago
  Ethereum is pseudonymous. Society should be used to pseudonymity by now, it's only been decades since everyone had accounts on everything. It's honestly astonishing how badly people are confused about online identity. (Side remark: Some crypto are in fact actually anonymous. The canonical example is Monero, where sending/receiving addresses, transaction amounts, and address balances are all obfuscated.)

tgv 4y ago

That's not trolling, that's trying to get other people to fight the US justice department for you. This "troll" probably has a lot riding on Tornado Cash. It's not the kind of stunt pulled by someone without interest.

chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
Or maybe they just have an interest in privacy. There's a lot of dedicated crypto nerds out there with money to blow like this.
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  If some rando decided to bring the Feds down on my head, I certainly would not be interested in fighting for their cause. I'd probably go "fuck you" and oppose whatever they wanted purely out of spite. If this is being done by an ideologue and not a troll, it's a pretty dumb one.
  - serial_dev 4y ago
    If a rando can bring the Feds down on my head without me doing anything, by only using public information about me, then I would be more frustrated by the "regulatory mess", this should not be possible. Basically: > The gag effectively points out the absurdity of such sanctions for users receiving funds from blacklisted addresses that they have no power to decline.
    - telchar 4y ago
      It seems to me this highlights a flaw in the payment system - the inability to decline. Am I understanding that right? You really can’t refuse an ETH transfer?
      - throwaway98797 4y ago
        correct is it a bug or a feature?

Ekaros 4y ago

It is nice demonstration how there is issues with this whole sanctioning of such service... Not that it will lead to anything. BTW, is there any wallets known to be owned by government agencies?

osrec 4y ago
I'm sure El Salvador will have a few...
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Crypto is proving to be unsanctionable. If this is true, I don't think it's a bull case. Specifically - with this issue - I think it becomes easy to get "unsanctioned" - transfer a Federal Wallet the amount of crypto received from a sanctioned wallet - until then - the wallet remains on the banned list - and any wallet that interacts with it becomes banned, too. You can build a graph and un-ban wallets when one of the banned wallets finally transfers the money to the Federal Wallet and becomes un-banned. And more specifically - with the troll case - you can simply only ban wallets after a specific dollar amount from banned wallets has been transferred to it. Someone trolls you by sending you $10 of poisoned Eth? Who cares. 10,000,000 wallets troll you by sending you $9 of poisoned Eth? Suspicious...
tempsy 4y ago
Circle/USDC immediately blacklisted every sanctioned address. Reality is USDC is so intertwined with Eth/Defi at this point that the Feds can effectively censor Eth through Circle. So while I agree this demonstration is silly it’s more a distraction from the fact that the Feds can enforce censorship via this highly centralized US-based stablecoin which has become so central to defi activity across many major protocols
Rebelgecko 4y ago
The Bitcoin wallets that were seized from Ross Ulbricht

labrador 4y ago

One thing I don't understand is that crypto and web3 are about taking back control, but anyone can drop anything in my wallet. Is that correct? It makes me anxious about participating because I can't control that.

silverlake 4y ago
Anyone can transfer money into your bank account.
- belltaco 4y ago
  Not from a sanctioned entity. Banks block transactions to and from those.
  - ptudan 4y ago
    Right, and if you want to use a CEX wallet, go ahead. They will block sanctioned addresses and move those funds into a frozen account for the feds.
Ferret7446 4y ago
Anyone can drop anything in your bank account, are you anxious about that?
- echelon 4y ago
  Performing an ACH will get your account picked up by the FinCEN and KYC dragnet. These are in no way comparable. I'm getting tired of these dishonest "crypto is the same" arguments. It's not even close. Banking is well regulated and monitored. There are mechanisms to protect people, rout out bad actors, and legal means to reverse transactions. Crypto is a "code is law" wild west, full of sharp edges and irreversible hacks and scams.
  - gjs278 4y ago

Cobragri 4y ago

GRIN MW has interactive transactions. Incoming transactions can be rejected-approved , you are in total control of your wallet. https://docs.grin.mw/about-grin/transactions/ https://docs.grin.mw/about-grin/transactions/

compsciphd 4y ago

hah, I called this months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31476551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31476551 "As a simple police matter. we can track the flow of bitcoin very easily. Imagine we created a law, one is not allowed to interact with any "blacklisted/tainted" account/wallet and any account/wallet that interacts with a blacklisted/tainted account/walletn after its been marked as blacklisted/tainted is automatically blacklisted/tainted itself (easy to determine in bitcoin). I'd hazard to say, that such a policy would have a quick impact on bitcoin's valuation. now, at first glance, this type of law might seem reasonable - if an account has been marked as doing illegal actions, any account that interacts with it is benefiting from said illegal actions. However, this would setup a world of griefers. In bitcoin (I believe) you don't really have the ability to accept or reject transfers. if someone transfers coins to my wallet's address, it will be mine. Imagine someone who gains access to a blacklisted wallet and just transfers tiny amounts to all the addresses that contain massive sums of bitcoin, thereby tainting it all. "

olliej 4y ago

Would send celebs meth or weed in the mail also count as trolling?