4 ms·

Close down until you figured out a way to react. Money laundering is serious crime, helping North Korea is as well. Tornado cash did apparently both, and author

by hef19898 4y ago

Close down until you figured out a way to react. Money laundering is serious crime, helping North Korea is as well. Tornado cash did apparently both, and authorities gave them a heads up. If it was me, I would close my shop down.

douglaswlance 4y ago
It cannot be shut down. The contract is immutable. It's still live, and it will still be live for decades to come, with new duplicates of the contract being published every day.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > It cannot be shut down. The contract is immutable. If that’s truly the case, shut down as in stop developing it and advise users to stop using it. Then the addresses get sanctioned and nobody is surprised.
rglullis 4y ago
- hef19898 4y ago
  The part where Tornado Cash as an exchange couldn't shut down for a while. And the fact that those, well, "contracts" cannot be nullified like literally any other contract signed in any jurisdiction is troublesome in itself. Lucky for Elon that he didn't use one of those contracts to buy Twitter.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Don't get confused by the terminology and don't get into word-thinking. A "contract" on the blockchain is nothing like a "contract" in the legal sense. Even if I get your signature on a blockchain saying that you are transferring your assets to me, there won't be any court willing to uphold this. In the same vein, it's not because that people talk about TC as a smart contract that gives it legal backing or makes it subject to the legalities of a "real world" contract. You could call it "stored procedures" if you prefer, but at the end of the day outlawing tornado cash based on its code is as ridiculous as outlawing RSA.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      What you describe, person A agreeing to sell over something to person B, even if just verbally, is a legal contract. Verbal contracts are perfectly legally binding, if somewhat hard to enforce for lack of proof. The lack of proof part is not a problem when it comes to blockchains, is it? Just because it is virtual doesn't mean real world laws don't apply. What gave you that idea?
      - rglullis 4y ago
        > person A agreeing to sell over something to person B, even if just verbally, is a legal contract. This is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that a contract is the definition of terms of a transaction, while a smart contract is the execution of a transaction. A "contract" defines what parties are supposed to do and the courts use to determine the legal process in case of disputes. Enforcement is not part of the contract. A "smart contract" is just about enforcement. It makes no sense to talk about the "smart contract" being legally binding or not, much like it makes no sense to talk about "running computer code" or "firing a gun" being legally binding. Sure, you can discuss if the actions resulting from someone running a program to be legal or not, but this has nothing to do with those actions where established in a "legally bound contract" or not.
- 8note 4y ago
  They could if they really wanted to. The ethereum block chain has rolled back to protect rich people's money
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Ok, seems like it is time to debunk the usual shitstorm of "arguments"... There was no "rollback". The DAO hack was reverted through a state change that only happened because there was a consensus on the miners to do it.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Contract law is not going to change just because someone tries to write an immutable contract in a computer program.
- chollida1 4y ago
  https://medium.com/@blockchain101/the-basics-of-upgradable-proxy-contracts-in-ethereum-479b5d3363d6 https://medium.com/@blockchain101/the-basics-of-upgradable-p... You put in a proxy contract that just sends the money back to the user who sent it to you. Problem solved for sanctions.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    To put a proxy contract means that there will be an admin able to make contract upgrades. IOW, you need to have offchain trust in the contract deployer. This is widely regarded as a measure that defeats the purpose of decentralization. So, yes, you could have an upgraded version of TC, but if you want to go that route you might simply use a centralized exchange as a mixer.
    - chollida1 4y ago
      Sure, you are partially correct in your understanding. I was only responding to some one who doesn't understand the ETH tech stack who said it was impossible. It most certainly isn't impossible and proxy contracts are how we deal with things like this in ETH.

douglaswlance 4y ago

It cannot be shut down. The contract is immutable. It's still live, and it will still be live for decades to come, with new duplicates of the contract being published every day.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> It cannot be shut down. The contract is immutable. If that’s truly the case, shut down as in stop developing it and advise users to stop using it. Then the addresses get sanctioned and nobody is surprised.

rglullis 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago
The part where Tornado Cash as an exchange couldn't shut down for a while. And the fact that those, well, "contracts" cannot be nullified like literally any other contract signed in any jurisdiction is troublesome in itself. Lucky for Elon that he didn't use one of those contracts to buy Twitter.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Don't get confused by the terminology and don't get into word-thinking. A "contract" on the blockchain is nothing like a "contract" in the legal sense. Even if I get your signature on a blockchain saying that you are transferring your assets to me, there won't be any court willing to uphold this. In the same vein, it's not because that people talk about TC as a smart contract that gives it legal backing or makes it subject to the legalities of a "real world" contract. You could call it "stored procedures" if you prefer, but at the end of the day outlawing tornado cash based on its code is as ridiculous as outlawing RSA.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    What you describe, person A agreeing to sell over something to person B, even if just verbally, is a legal contract. Verbal contracts are perfectly legally binding, if somewhat hard to enforce for lack of proof. The lack of proof part is not a problem when it comes to blockchains, is it? Just because it is virtual doesn't mean real world laws don't apply. What gave you that idea?
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > person A agreeing to sell over something to person B, even if just verbally, is a legal contract. This is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that a contract is the definition of terms of a transaction, while a smart contract is the execution of a transaction. A "contract" defines what parties are supposed to do and the courts use to determine the legal process in case of disputes. Enforcement is not part of the contract. A "smart contract" is just about enforcement. It makes no sense to talk about the "smart contract" being legally binding or not, much like it makes no sense to talk about "running computer code" or "firing a gun" being legally binding. Sure, you can discuss if the actions resulting from someone running a program to be legal or not, but this has nothing to do with those actions where established in a "legally bound contract" or not.
8note 4y ago
They could if they really wanted to. The ethereum block chain has rolled back to protect rich people's money
- rglullis 4y ago
  Ok, seems like it is time to debunk the usual shitstorm of "arguments"... There was no "rollback". The DAO hack was reverted through a state change that only happened because there was a consensus on the miners to do it.
twblalock 4y ago
Contract law is not going to change just because someone tries to write an immutable contract in a computer program.
chollida1 4y ago
https://medium.com/@blockchain101/the-basics-of-upgradable-proxy-contracts-in-ethereum-479b5d3363d6 https://medium.com/@blockchain101/the-basics-of-upgradable-p... You put in a proxy contract that just sends the money back to the user who sent it to you. Problem solved for sanctions.
- rglullis 4y ago
  To put a proxy contract means that there will be an admin able to make contract upgrades. IOW, you need to have offchain trust in the contract deployer. This is widely regarded as a measure that defeats the purpose of decentralization. So, yes, you could have an upgraded version of TC, but if you want to go that route you might simply use a centralized exchange as a mixer.
  - chollida1 4y ago
    Sure, you are partially correct in your understanding. I was only responding to some one who doesn't understand the ETH tech stack who said it was impossible. It most certainly isn't impossible and proxy contracts are how we deal with things like this in ETH.