4 ms·
>I’m pretty sure the majority I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :) And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were use
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
>I’m pretty sure the majority
I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :)
And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were used significantly for crime, and added features to facilitate crime, and ignored laws requiring tracking criminals (which is what money processors have to follow), then the duffel bag maker would be criminally liable.
In the cast at hand, the company processes the transactions for criminals. That is vastly different than selling a duffel bag. And it runs afoul of criminal money laundering laws that all processors have to follow, and for good reason.
This is why the courts are the place to hash such stuff out - internet opinions are vastly inferior to people performing investigations using evidence.
- dlubarov 4y agoWhat could "features to facilitate crime" be in this particular case? Tornado is a simple contract with a singular purpose, to provide financial privacy for its users. It simply doesn't have any features that facilitate a more specific use case, be it money laundering, personal safety, or anything else.
- diogenes1 4y agoSource - ChrisLemont get off your high horse, use of tornado cash is quite common among crypto natives, otherwise it's like broadcasting your pepsi purchases on instagram
- arlcode 4y agoTornado cash could have (for example) implemented AML or KYC policies to achieve the same without coming under the suspicion of assisting criminals. Given the high data protection requirements warranted by operating a financial service, users could be reasonable sure that their Pepsi purchase remains private. Of course such measures would run counter the intended use of Tornado cash, including money laundering, but that is their problem and no one's else.