3 ms·

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

by 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?
      - devit 4y ago
        You can if you put your money in a smart contract that refuses all transfers that haven't been pre-approved by you, although that's not the standard procedure.
        dgs_sgd 4y ago
        This makes it more difficult but not impossible. The EVM has a SELFDESTRUCT opcode [1] that will send ETH at that address to a receiver and it's impossible for the receiver to refuse. A very determined actor could send Tornado ETH to a contract designed to self destruct upon receipt of the ETH and relay it to the intended receiver. [1] https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/attacks/force-feeding/#selfdestruct https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/at...
        devit 4y ago
        You can program your smart contract to forever deny the use of such funds by recording its "non-selfdestruct" balance in the state and only allow to withdraw up to that amount.
    - buran77 4y ago
      > then I would be more frustrated by the "regulatory mess" That's not how regulation works. No man made law can make something actually impossible. It's there to define what you're allowed to do or not, and serves as a basis for the legal consequences. Enforcement can make things impossible. Some problems are solved with regulation but this is a technology (enforcement) problem. Murder is unambiguously illegal and yet regulation can't make it impossible. You have no power to decline being shot.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      It is known as swatting.
    - 8note 4y ago
      It's using an open letter you sent to everyone, including sanctioned entities, that you'll always accept their money. That you've been bamboozled by ETH it's between you and ETH. I can imagine future crypto regulation will include requirements that users can decline receiving transactions
panarky 4y ago
Coinbase's Brian Armstrong just got OFAC'd https://twitter.com/tier10k/status/1557013888264183808 https://twitter.com/tier10k/status/1557013888264183808
yieldcrv 4y ago
for reference, "a lot" meaning $170 they're sending 0.1 Ether, which simply means they deposited 0.1 Ether which is currently $170 each also, when Tornado Cash's anonymity isn't the priority, you don't need to delay between a deposit and a withdrawal, so this person wouldn't have needed to have interest within Tornado Cash, they could have acquired Ether, deposited Ether into Tornado Cash and sent it out, all within 60 seconds of each other, especially with a bot Tornado Cash has reportedly $400 million in it, 213,000 Ether. Someone with "a lot" of interest would have much more than 0.1 Ether deposits to troll with (because each denomination has a different pool, so someone using the 10 and 100 ether pool simply wouldn't bother with the 0.1 ether pool). Anyone can do this and there are alot of people willing to force the logical extremes of sanctioning a pool.

by tgv 4y ago

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?
    - devit 4y ago
      You can if you put your money in a smart contract that refuses all transfers that haven't been pre-approved by you, although that's not the standard procedure.
      - dgs_sgd 4y ago
        This makes it more difficult but not impossible. The EVM has a SELFDESTRUCT opcode [1] that will send ETH at that address to a receiver and it's impossible for the receiver to refuse. A very determined actor could send Tornado ETH to a contract designed to self destruct upon receipt of the ETH and relay it to the intended receiver. [1] https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/attacks/force-feeding/#selfdestruct https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/at...
        devit 4y ago
        You can program your smart contract to forever deny the use of such funds by recording its "non-selfdestruct" balance in the state and only allow to withdraw up to that amount.
  - buran77 4y ago
    > then I would be more frustrated by the "regulatory mess" That's not how regulation works. No man made law can make something actually impossible. It's there to define what you're allowed to do or not, and serves as a basis for the legal consequences. Enforcement can make things impossible. Some problems are solved with regulation but this is a technology (enforcement) problem. Murder is unambiguously illegal and yet regulation can't make it impossible. You have no power to decline being shot.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    It is known as swatting.
  - 8note 4y ago
    It's using an open letter you sent to everyone, including sanctioned entities, that you'll always accept their money. That you've been bamboozled by ETH it's between you and ETH. I can imagine future crypto regulation will include requirements that users can decline receiving transactions

panarky 4y ago

Coinbase's Brian Armstrong just got OFAC'd https://twitter.com/tier10k/status/1557013888264183808 https://twitter.com/tier10k/status/1557013888264183808

yieldcrv 4y ago

for reference, "a lot" meaning $170 they're sending 0.1 Ether, which simply means they deposited 0.1 Ether which is currently $170 each also, when Tornado Cash's anonymity isn't the priority, you don't need to delay between a deposit and a withdrawal, so this person wouldn't have needed to have interest within Tornado Cash, they could have acquired Ether, deposited Ether into Tornado Cash and sent it out, all within 60 seconds of each other, especially with a bot Tornado Cash has reportedly $400 million in it, 213,000 Ether. Someone with "a lot" of interest would have much more than 0.1 Ether deposits to troll with (because each denomination has a different pool, so someone using the 10 and 100 ether pool simply wouldn't bother with the 0.1 ether pool). Anyone can do this and there are alot of people willing to force the logical extremes of sanctioning a pool.