3 ms·

> you can't absolve yourself by building a robot that does the crime for you. But the argument isn't at all about absolving the robot builder. In fact, they ex

> you can't absolve yourself by building a robot that does the crime for you. But the argument isn't at all about absolving the robot builder. In fact, they explicitly take no view on whether the sanctions against the Tornado Cash entity are justified. They also do not take a view on whether the government would be justified in prosecuting the individuals behind Tornado Cash. They are saying the government does not have the statutory authority to sanction the robot you built.

woodruffw 4y ago
That's not what they're saying. They're saying the government doesn't have the statutory authority to sanction the entity that built the robot. This is the entire point of their extended digression on the "Tornado Cash Entity" versus the "Tornado Cash Application." (Defending the TCE also continues below that, on a mostly irrelevant and unargued tangent about software IP.)
- miracle2k 4y ago
  From the post: "So there is potentially an entity called Tornado Cash that is controlled by certain individuals, and the web address and some of the Ethereum addresses in the notice can be thought of as either pseudonyms for that entity or, alternatively, as its property. At this point, we’re not offering an opinion on whether it was appropriate to sanction that entity—we do not know all the facts that have led to this action—but we would agree that there may be an entity behind those donation addresses and that said entity may be legally eligible for listing. "
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Yeah, I read that. The problem is that it just isn't compatible with the rest of the post: there are extended sections where they point out that the TCE can't be held responsible for the TCA, that even an IP-based case against the TCE would not apply, etc. etc. In short: they're trying to have it both ways, and it's not coming off well. If they had restricted their attention to just the TCA the argument would be more interesting, but ultimately still not compelling: everybody involved understands that there were some humans who decided to "pull the trigger" and deploy the TCA.

woodruffw 4y ago

That's not what they're saying. They're saying the government doesn't have the statutory authority to sanction the entity that built the robot. This is the entire point of their extended digression on the "Tornado Cash Entity" versus the "Tornado Cash Application." (Defending the TCE also continues below that, on a mostly irrelevant and unargued tangent about software IP.)

miracle2k 4y ago
From the post: "So there is potentially an entity called Tornado Cash that is controlled by certain individuals, and the web address and some of the Ethereum addresses in the notice can be thought of as either pseudonyms for that entity or, alternatively, as its property. At this point, we’re not offering an opinion on whether it was appropriate to sanction that entity—we do not know all the facts that have led to this action—but we would agree that there may be an entity behind those donation addresses and that said entity may be legally eligible for listing. "
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Yeah, I read that. The problem is that it just isn't compatible with the rest of the post: there are extended sections where they point out that the TCE can't be held responsible for the TCA, that even an IP-based case against the TCE would not apply, etc. etc. In short: they're trying to have it both ways, and it's not coming off well. If they had restricted their attention to just the TCA the argument would be more interesting, but ultimately still not compelling: everybody involved understands that there were some humans who decided to "pull the trigger" and deploy the TCA.