5 ms·

Judges don't run code, so a dusting attack isn't going to magically obfuscate anything. The blockchain record is public and it's clear "to a reasonable person"

Judges don't run code, so a dusting attack isn't going to magically obfuscate anything. The blockchain record is public and it's clear "to a reasonable person" that this is just a smokescreen. That's really what's missing from web3: the concept of what a reasonable person [1] would believe - not a code-based contract. [1] https://www.courthouselibrary.ca/how-we-can-help/our-legal-knowledge-base/reasonable-person-reasonable-man https://www.courthouselibrary.ca/how-we-can-help/our-legal-k...

seibelj 4y ago
It will result in merely detecting the presence of Tornado activity to be unenforceable, which will then result in "smart" detection (an algorithm for which is up for debate), which will be cat and mouse forever. The law as written doesn't have this reasonable person standard yet. I really think the OFAC regime made a mistake here. They overplayed their hands and this will result in a bunch of debate and court activity, which may reduce their power in the end. I would have started mass-blacklisting frequent users of Tornado rather than the contracts themselves, and certainly not by-default made Americans criminals who receive Tornado funds. That is clearly unenforceable and will put a magnifying glass on this issue.
- rblatz 4y ago
  You act like Ethereum is some sort of force of nature and the OFAC needs to play by the rules of Ethereum instead of the other way around. If Ethereum as a whole is designed in a way that makes it impossible to enforce current laws, it's more likely that Ethereum will need to adapt to the laws, or eth will be made illegal and anyone caught dealing in eth will be considered to have broken the law.
  - seibelj 4y ago
    It’s possible a government agency will go rogue and try to wipe out the savings and industry of millions of Americans. Seems unlikely to me.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    Governments are not a force of nature either. Sure, they're more likely to win over Eth, but I personally always remain hopeful for change in incumbent systems.
  - sneak 4y ago
    > You act like Ethereum is some sort of force of nature and the OFAC needs to play by the rules of Ethereum instead of the other way around. There exist in our society things that the state is actually unable to completely prohibit, prostitution and cocaine principally among them. It's possible that cryptocurrencies also fall into this category. The state's power to ban things is not without practical limits and constraints.
kadoban 4y ago
It could make investigators' jobs more annoying. I wonder if something like this would count as some sort of obstruction.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
That would probably help if it made it to a judge. If github is willing to ban anybody who ever contributed to a repository (EDIT: or not), what are the odds that some exchange will ban anybody who ever touched a tainted wallet? Edit: Actually I have to partially walk that back. It's fairly buried in the comments on the other article, but it looks like the GitHub bans were a lot more limited than that. On the other hand, I could still see an exchange taking such an approach, so I'm going to leave this comment because I think the point is still valid.
- cobertos 4y ago
  Which GitHub repository? yt-dl?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    tornado's github
ezoe 4y ago
Let's hope the police, prosecutor and judge, hell, even your lawyer understand any of this. Meanwhile in Japan, there was a crazy sentence for a crime of using a crypto-currency that has been stolen. Not the real criminal responsible of the theft, but some random idiots who think investing on crypto-currency was a good idea and purchased the token that was a part of stolen token. I bet these idiots has never run full-node on the computer he owns. He just relies on some SaaS wallet service by somebody else. I guess ignorance is a crime.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Ignorance is not a crime, but it’s also not a defense.
  - treesprite82 4y ago
    No knowledge/criminal intent relating to the act can be a defense (other than for strict liability crimes like statutory rape), ignorance of the law is not.
    - drc500free 4y ago
      With some small exceptions for a few white-collar crimes that do require knowing the act was illegal. But that doesn't apply 99% of the time.
- creato 4y ago
  Sounds just like buying a stolen bike, knowingly or not.
  - ectopod 4y ago
    Knowingly is a crime. Unknowingly is not. In England anyway.
    - criddell 4y ago
      I think it's the same in the US. Actus reus and mens reus.
Eduard 4y ago
I'm pretty sure this is not about obfuscating anything.
nyolfen 4y ago
> That's really what's missing from web3: the concept of what a reasonable person [1] would believe - not a code-based contract. this is fundamentally a social technology, and can be built on top of what exists. it's nearly impossible to bridge the gap from systems built on human judgment (trusted) -> impersonal contractual absolutism (trustless), but the reverse is a simple matter of opting in. you only have to allow others to have rights over your property, and interact with others who do the same. this is more or less what i would expect to happen over the long term; most people prefer safety and convenience over shouldering the entire burden of security and awareness for every financial transaction. it's vitally important that the option remains available, though.
egorfine 4y ago
> "to a reasonable person" that this is just a smokescreen. Law and sanctions are not "reasonable persons". It's not up for interpretations.
Taek 4y ago
It's a smokescreen in the case of this attack. But it also sets an important precedent. Because high profile accounts have been hit by this dusting attack, lower profile victims that got hit by the same attack are now much more easily going to be able to use this as a defense in court. If this hadn't happened to such high profile people, someone in court might be trying to say things like "look, I know my address is on the sanctioned list for money laundering but that's because someone I didn't know paid me", and the judge is going to be skeptical and say "I don't understand this blockchain stuff, but the software from <trusted sanctions partner> says you are guilty of sanctions violations."

seibelj 4y ago

It will result in merely detecting the presence of Tornado activity to be unenforceable, which will then result in "smart" detection (an algorithm for which is up for debate), which will be cat and mouse forever. The law as written doesn't have this reasonable person standard yet. I really think the OFAC regime made a mistake here. They overplayed their hands and this will result in a bunch of debate and court activity, which may reduce their power in the end. I would have started mass-blacklisting frequent users of Tornado rather than the contracts themselves, and certainly not by-default made Americans criminals who receive Tornado funds. That is clearly unenforceable and will put a magnifying glass on this issue.

rblatz 4y ago
You act like Ethereum is some sort of force of nature and the OFAC needs to play by the rules of Ethereum instead of the other way around. If Ethereum as a whole is designed in a way that makes it impossible to enforce current laws, it's more likely that Ethereum will need to adapt to the laws, or eth will be made illegal and anyone caught dealing in eth will be considered to have broken the law.
- seibelj 4y ago
  It’s possible a government agency will go rogue and try to wipe out the savings and industry of millions of Americans. Seems unlikely to me.
- nisegami 4y ago
  Governments are not a force of nature either. Sure, they're more likely to win over Eth, but I personally always remain hopeful for change in incumbent systems.
- sneak 4y ago
  > You act like Ethereum is some sort of force of nature and the OFAC needs to play by the rules of Ethereum instead of the other way around. There exist in our society things that the state is actually unable to completely prohibit, prostitution and cocaine principally among them. It's possible that cryptocurrencies also fall into this category. The state's power to ban things is not without practical limits and constraints.

kadoban 4y ago

It could make investigators' jobs more annoying. I wonder if something like this would count as some sort of obstruction.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

That would probably help if it made it to a judge. If github is willing to ban anybody who ever contributed to a repository (EDIT: or not), what are the odds that some exchange will ban anybody who ever touched a tainted wallet? Edit: Actually I have to partially walk that back. It's fairly buried in the comments on the other article, but it looks like the GitHub bans were a lot more limited than that. On the other hand, I could still see an exchange taking such an approach, so I'm going to leave this comment because I think the point is still valid.

cobertos 4y ago
Which GitHub repository? yt-dl?
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  tornado's github

ezoe 4y ago

Let's hope the police, prosecutor and judge, hell, even your lawyer understand any of this. Meanwhile in Japan, there was a crazy sentence for a crime of using a crypto-currency that has been stolen. Not the real criminal responsible of the theft, but some random idiots who think investing on crypto-currency was a good idea and purchased the token that was a part of stolen token. I bet these idiots has never run full-node on the computer he owns. He just relies on some SaaS wallet service by somebody else. I guess ignorance is a crime.

woodruffw 4y ago
Ignorance is not a crime, but it’s also not a defense.
- treesprite82 4y ago
  No knowledge/criminal intent relating to the act can be a defense (other than for strict liability crimes like statutory rape), ignorance of the law is not.
  - drc500free 4y ago
    With some small exceptions for a few white-collar crimes that do require knowing the act was illegal. But that doesn't apply 99% of the time.
creato 4y ago
Sounds just like buying a stolen bike, knowingly or not.
- ectopod 4y ago
  Knowingly is a crime. Unknowingly is not. In England anyway.
  - criddell 4y ago
    I think it's the same in the US. Actus reus and mens reus.

Eduard 4y ago

I'm pretty sure this is not about obfuscating anything.

nyolfen 4y ago

> That's really what's missing from web3: the concept of what a reasonable person [1] would believe - not a code-based contract. this is fundamentally a social technology, and can be built on top of what exists. it's nearly impossible to bridge the gap from systems built on human judgment (trusted) -> impersonal contractual absolutism (trustless), but the reverse is a simple matter of opting in. you only have to allow others to have rights over your property, and interact with others who do the same. this is more or less what i would expect to happen over the long term; most people prefer safety and convenience over shouldering the entire burden of security and awareness for every financial transaction. it's vitally important that the option remains available, though.

egorfine 4y ago

> "to a reasonable person" that this is just a smokescreen. Law and sanctions are not "reasonable persons". It's not up for interpretations.

Taek 4y ago

It's a smokescreen in the case of this attack. But it also sets an important precedent. Because high profile accounts have been hit by this dusting attack, lower profile victims that got hit by the same attack are now much more easily going to be able to use this as a defense in court. If this hadn't happened to such high profile people, someone in court might be trying to say things like "look, I know my address is on the sanctioned list for money laundering but that's because someone I didn't know paid me", and the judge is going to be skeptical and say "I don't understand this blockchain stuff, but the software from <trusted sanctions partner> says you are guilty of sanctions violations."