4 ms·

I kind of agree that Treasury should not have exactly this power to ban Tornado protocol. However, I believe Treasury certainly has the power to ban all transac

I kind of agree that Treasury should not have exactly this power to ban Tornado protocol. However, I believe Treasury certainly has the power to ban all transactions with networks hosting money laundering protocols. It would certainly be worse for crypto if it were illegal to buy sell ETH and friends because their networks host Tornado protocol. I see this attempt to moderate the network itself as “going easy” on crypto investors. The crux of the issue comes down to moderation. In a sufficiently large and complex network, moderation becomes a necessity not an option. This won’t be the last case. Regulators generally strike when sufficiently popular technology makes it sufficiently easy to perform sufficiently damaging illegal activity.

dannyw 4y ago
Moderation is generally not required under US law. For example, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provide safe harbor provisions: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider'. It doesn't matter if I run a site with 10 users or 100 million users: the law's provisions and protections are the same. You are right that regulators generally strike when there is a critical mass. However, my 2c is that this is not backed by statue, and US Treasury does not have the right to sanction software code. They can certainly sanction users who use TC for money laundering, but code itself? That's like sanctioning PGP or end-to-end encryption...
- helen___keller 4y ago
  Sorry to be clear, I’m not claiming moderation is legally required, I’m claiming it effectively becomes necessary for a network to avoid stepping on landmines. For example, it’s impossible to run a social network website of 100 million users without users uploading illegal content. Moderation is a necessity to avoid being taken down by the feds for hosting illegal content. I agree that treasury doesn’t have the right to sanction code. They do have the right to ban exchanges from exchanging ETH. However, nobody wants that, so they’d rather try and extend their powers to effectively become ETH moderators.
dcolkitt 4y ago
The reality is Treasury does not have the political capital to outlaw Ethereum. It's a $200 billion asset that one in ten Americans and many of the largest pensions, hedge funds, and Biden's largest donors are invested in.
- helen___keller 4y ago
  Yes. That’s why they would rather try and moderate crypto networks rather than ban. If they don’t succeed, I’d expect more heavy handed attempts by other branches of government. I don’t think the government will ever give up, in large part because I think there is political capital and mandate to regulate crypto (just not ban it). If crypto crashes even further, a full ban might be possible some day.

dannyw 4y ago

Moderation is generally not required under US law. For example, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provide safe harbor provisions: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider'. It doesn't matter if I run a site with 10 users or 100 million users: the law's provisions and protections are the same. You are right that regulators generally strike when there is a critical mass. However, my 2c is that this is not backed by statue, and US Treasury does not have the right to sanction software code. They can certainly sanction users who use TC for money laundering, but code itself? That's like sanctioning PGP or end-to-end encryption...

helen___keller 4y ago
Sorry to be clear, I’m not claiming moderation is legally required, I’m claiming it effectively becomes necessary for a network to avoid stepping on landmines. For example, it’s impossible to run a social network website of 100 million users without users uploading illegal content. Moderation is a necessity to avoid being taken down by the feds for hosting illegal content. I agree that treasury doesn’t have the right to sanction code. They do have the right to ban exchanges from exchanging ETH. However, nobody wants that, so they’d rather try and extend their powers to effectively become ETH moderators.

dcolkitt 4y ago

The reality is Treasury does not have the political capital to outlaw Ethereum. It's a $200 billion asset that one in ten Americans and many of the largest pensions, hedge funds, and Biden's largest donors are invested in.

helen___keller 4y ago
Yes. That’s why they would rather try and moderate crypto networks rather than ban. If they don’t succeed, I’d expect more heavy handed attempts by other branches of government. I don’t think the government will ever give up, in large part because I think there is political capital and mandate to regulate crypto (just not ban it). If crypto crashes even further, a full ban might be possible some day.