8 ms·

This is already doable with most wallets today. Most wallets enable you to create 2^64 addresses from the same seed phrase. These are hardened and can't be link

This is already doable with most wallets today. Most wallets enable you to create 2^64 addresses from the same seed phrase. These are hardened and can't be linked together by just creating them. So if Alice wants to send Bob an NFT, Bob creates a new address (recoverable with the same seed phrase) and Alice sends it there. Bob can then fund the wallet with tornado cash to use the NFT. It's a stupidly complex way to achieve privacy and Tornado Cash is illegal. That's why we need private by default chains like Aztec & Aleo

tromp 4y ago
That seems different though, since Bob needs to give out a new address for each transfer. With stealth addresses, once Bob published his public address, multiple senders can transfer to Bob without further interaction by Bob.
monero-xmr 4y ago
Tornado cash is illegal for US citizens. Not illegal for anyone else. And a lawsuit against the overreach of the Treasury department will likely make it legal again.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  What exactly is the "overreach" argument? In terms of statutory authority, the Treasury hasn't done anything particularly unusual in adding a known money-laundering vehicle to the OFAC list.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    All tornado notes generate a proof that you can use to show where it came from. It’s the same as monero, another privacy coin which is not illegal. There is a long list of issues here but tornado is just a program. The users of that program can use it for good or bad. They sanctioned the creators and Tornado is still chugging along. It’s equivalent to banning cryptography because money launderers encrypt their messages. Here is a good summary of the argument against Treasury by Coin Center https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-its-tornado-cash-sanction/ https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-it...
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      None of this amounts to an "overreach" argument. Again: statutorily, where has the Treasury Department mis-stepped? You'll note that all kinds of entities, including full banks, are on the OFAC list[1]. This doesn't amount to a blanket ban on banking, and "it's just a bank, there are others" is not an argument that anyone finds convincing. [1]: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
      - monero-xmr 4y ago
        The previously linked article makes 4 arguments but this is the one I find most compelling: even Treasury’s own regulations and past executive orders limit the applicability of sanction controls to transactions with persons, entities, or their property. The Tornado Cash sanction was made without statutory and also without regulatory authority. It was made contrary to law.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        I've read that post a couple of times, and even wrote a response to it[1]! TL;DR: The Treasury Department doesn't care that Tornado Cash is "just" a computer program, because a computer program is an instrument made and operated by human beings. Even an autonomous program does not escape this, for the same reason that you can't escape a murder charge by throwing a bomb into the air and claiming gravity as a defense. [1]: https://blog.yossarian.net/2022/09/14/Tornado-Cash-and-bullets https://blog.yossarian.net/2022/09/14/Tornado-Cash-and-bulle...
        monero-xmr 4y ago
        I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets. The government is not allowed to put a camera in my house and watch me 24/7. Sure, I might be committing crimes inside my house. But unless the government can convince a judge that they suspect me of committing crimes that justify such a camera, they cannot install said camera. Similarly, merely using a technique to obfuscate the origin of my own money is not enough to claim I am a criminal. I can do similar with gold coins and paper cash, and in high dollar amounts. Eventually I’ll want to use my financial assets to purchase something, and at that point the receiver should ask me where I got my money (if legally required to) and with Tornado Cash I can fully explain the origin of my legal funds. Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    regurgitating anti encryption talking points to justify regulating other people’s wallets, I guess it’s only natural to oppose financial privacy when your economic policies depend on having the right to other people’s money.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I'm very pro-encryption. I'm not convinced that sanctions against Tornado Cash pose a serious risk to E2EE or other civically important (necessary!) applications of encryption.
      - alphanullmeric 4y ago
        I don’t need to justify my right to privacy to prevent you from violating it. Come up with a better defence than the redistribution of consequences, this not the EU.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Okay! Take it up with the Treasury Department then, not me. I'm just your local Internet Commentariat Bureau delegate.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Secret Network https://scrt.network/ https://scrt.network/
- mhluongo 4y ago
  It relies on trusted hardware (SGX) that's been shown to be insecure many times. Please don't trust your freedom to SGX.
deevolution 4y ago
Or Monero.

tromp 4y ago

That seems different though, since Bob needs to give out a new address for each transfer. With stealth addresses, once Bob published his public address, multiple senders can transfer to Bob without further interaction by Bob.

monero-xmr 4y ago

Tornado cash is illegal for US citizens. Not illegal for anyone else. And a lawsuit against the overreach of the Treasury department will likely make it legal again.

woodruffw 4y ago
What exactly is the "overreach" argument? In terms of statutory authority, the Treasury hasn't done anything particularly unusual in adding a known money-laundering vehicle to the OFAC list.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  All tornado notes generate a proof that you can use to show where it came from. It’s the same as monero, another privacy coin which is not illegal. There is a long list of issues here but tornado is just a program. The users of that program can use it for good or bad. They sanctioned the creators and Tornado is still chugging along. It’s equivalent to banning cryptography because money launderers encrypt their messages. Here is a good summary of the argument against Treasury by Coin Center https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-its-tornado-cash-sanction/ https://www.coincenter.org/coin-center-is-suing-ofac-over-it...
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    None of this amounts to an "overreach" argument. Again: statutorily, where has the Treasury Department mis-stepped? You'll note that all kinds of entities, including full banks, are on the OFAC list[1]. This doesn't amount to a blanket ban on banking, and "it's just a bank, there are others" is not an argument that anyone finds convincing. [1]: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      The previously linked article makes 4 arguments but this is the one I find most compelling: even Treasury’s own regulations and past executive orders limit the applicability of sanction controls to transactions with persons, entities, or their property. The Tornado Cash sanction was made without statutory and also without regulatory authority. It was made contrary to law.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I've read that post a couple of times, and even wrote a response to it[1]! TL;DR: The Treasury Department doesn't care that Tornado Cash is "just" a computer program, because a computer program is an instrument made and operated by human beings. Even an autonomous program does not escape this, for the same reason that you can't escape a murder charge by throwing a bomb into the air and claiming gravity as a defense. [1]: https://blog.yossarian.net/2022/09/14/Tornado-Cash-and-bullets https://blog.yossarian.net/2022/09/14/Tornado-Cash-and-bulle...
        monero-xmr 4y ago
        I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets. The government is not allowed to put a camera in my house and watch me 24/7. Sure, I might be committing crimes inside my house. But unless the government can convince a judge that they suspect me of committing crimes that justify such a camera, they cannot install said camera. Similarly, merely using a technique to obfuscate the origin of my own money is not enough to claim I am a criminal. I can do similar with gold coins and paper cash, and in high dollar amounts. Eventually I’ll want to use my financial assets to purchase something, and at that point the receiver should ask me where I got my money (if legally required to) and with Tornado Cash I can fully explain the origin of my legal funds. Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  regurgitating anti encryption talking points to justify regulating other people’s wallets, I guess it’s only natural to oppose financial privacy when your economic policies depend on having the right to other people’s money.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I'm very pro-encryption. I'm not convinced that sanctions against Tornado Cash pose a serious risk to E2EE or other civically important (necessary!) applications of encryption.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      I don’t need to justify my right to privacy to prevent you from violating it. Come up with a better defence than the redistribution of consequences, this not the EU.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Okay! Take it up with the Treasury Department then, not me. I'm just your local Internet Commentariat Bureau delegate.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago

Secret Network https://scrt.network/ https://scrt.network/

mhluongo 4y ago
It relies on trusted hardware (SGX) that's been shown to be insecure many times. Please don't trust your freedom to SGX.

deevolution 4y ago

Or Monero.