3 ms·

The people that 'shot' the bullet though are either the node operators or the users of Tornado Cash. Interestingly the node operators (the people ACTUALLY EXEC

The people that 'shot' the bullet though are either the node operators or the users of Tornado Cash. Interestingly the node operators (the people ACTUALLY EXECUTING TC, even at this very moment) haven't been sanctioned at all, despite pulling the trigger that enabled these transactions. Logical consistency would dictate that Ethereum as we know it should end as node operators have immutably absorbed and operate reckless machine gun firing wildly on the chain. In fact many of the people interacted with TC don't even have possession of the gun, rather they pay the 'hitman' the node operators to do it.

smsm42 4y ago
Well, in this case the bullet analogy is imperfect, as in financial crimes like these there are more than one side which is violating the law. Probably a drug market would be a better analogy - in this case, all of the buyer, the seller and the market organizer are violating the laws (and there's no actual victim, but that's the topic for a different conversation). > Interestingly the node operators (the people ACTUALLY EXECUTING TC, even at this very moment) haven't been sanctioned at all Because the crime is not "executing TC", the crime is (certain) financial transactions. TC code is just the means by which it is executed, and the node operators do not intend to execute a specific financial transaction and do not specifically benefit from it. Just like, for example, if you are going to buy illegal drugs, and you send the payment for it via Venmo and then send the stash location using Gmail, Venmo and Google would not be liable for the drug transaction (even if Venmo charged a transaction fee) because for them it's just common transaction like any other. Same would go for node operators. > In fact many of the people interacted with TC don't even have possession of the gun It doesn't matter. What matters is who caused the illegal activity to happen. I mean, if you had a chain that is dedicated to money laundering or another illegal activity, and had no other uses whatsoever - it could actually earn OFAC designation probably by itself, as a whole, and then using it and running the node might become a crime. But I don't think OFAC intends to argue that's the case with Ethereum - it's pretty clearly not true, as most Ethereum users and nodes are perfectly happy to follow the law and never do anything illegal.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >the crime is (certain) financial transactions. So who is the counterparty then? The other random guy(s) who deposited the ETH you end up with? Using the venmo analogy, it would be the actual venmo corporate computers EXECUTING the tornado cash program. It seems a little odd to me here to not hold the people executing the transaction program accountable if it's on the sanction list explicitly noting TORNADO CASH is OFAC sanctioned. Remember those nodes running the ethereum virtual machine are validating and computing the transaction, and thus the entire foundation of ethereum would be guilty per your assessment, no?
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Not every transaction must have a counter-party that is distinct from the initiator. You could transact with yourself, and some form of that may be also illegal - e.g., wash trading or structuring (I am not saying it's how it should be in ideal world, but currently it is definitely the case). > thus the entire foundation of ethereum would be guilty per your assessment, no? No, why would it be? Again, the Ethereum system did not initiate the specific illegal transactions - it was used (without their specific cooperation or knowledge) to perform the transactions, it's very different.

smsm42 4y ago

Well, in this case the bullet analogy is imperfect, as in financial crimes like these there are more than one side which is violating the law. Probably a drug market would be a better analogy - in this case, all of the buyer, the seller and the market organizer are violating the laws (and there's no actual victim, but that's the topic for a different conversation). > Interestingly the node operators (the people ACTUALLY EXECUTING TC, even at this very moment) haven't been sanctioned at all Because the crime is not "executing TC", the crime is (certain) financial transactions. TC code is just the means by which it is executed, and the node operators do not intend to execute a specific financial transaction and do not specifically benefit from it. Just like, for example, if you are going to buy illegal drugs, and you send the payment for it via Venmo and then send the stash location using Gmail, Venmo and Google would not be liable for the drug transaction (even if Venmo charged a transaction fee) because for them it's just common transaction like any other. Same would go for node operators. > In fact many of the people interacted with TC don't even have possession of the gun It doesn't matter. What matters is who caused the illegal activity to happen. I mean, if you had a chain that is dedicated to money laundering or another illegal activity, and had no other uses whatsoever - it could actually earn OFAC designation probably by itself, as a whole, and then using it and running the node might become a crime. But I don't think OFAC intends to argue that's the case with Ethereum - it's pretty clearly not true, as most Ethereum users and nodes are perfectly happy to follow the law and never do anything illegal.

notch656a 4y ago
>the crime is (certain) financial transactions. So who is the counterparty then? The other random guy(s) who deposited the ETH you end up with? Using the venmo analogy, it would be the actual venmo corporate computers EXECUTING the tornado cash program. It seems a little odd to me here to not hold the people executing the transaction program accountable if it's on the sanction list explicitly noting TORNADO CASH is OFAC sanctioned. Remember those nodes running the ethereum virtual machine are validating and computing the transaction, and thus the entire foundation of ethereum would be guilty per your assessment, no?
- smsm42 4y ago
  Not every transaction must have a counter-party that is distinct from the initiator. You could transact with yourself, and some form of that may be also illegal - e.g., wash trading or structuring (I am not saying it's how it should be in ideal world, but currently it is definitely the case). > thus the entire foundation of ethereum would be guilty per your assessment, no? No, why would it be? Again, the Ethereum system did not initiate the specific illegal transactions - it was used (without their specific cooperation or knowledge) to perform the transactions, it's very different.