4 ms·

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

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.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets. The link is explained in the post: in both instances, a human is the prime mover. No court in the world draws a distinction between "Joe kills Bob" and "Joe builds a Bob-killing robot that kills Bob." Similarly, no court in the world is likely to draw a distinction between "North Korea launders money" and "North Korea uses an autonomous program to launder money." It simply isn't relevant. > 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. To be clear: if attempt to obfuscate your cash transactions by structuring them beneath the limits that trigger CTR reporting, you're committing a crime. You can have reasonable opinions about whether that ought to be a crime, but it is absolutely not legal in the current regulatory scheme to intentionally avoid your reporting requirements. > Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd. We have a precise, material example of Tornado enabling a specific crime. That crime is the reason it's on the OFAC list, and it's stated in clear, precise language on the Treasury's site. Again: you can claim that Tornado is an instrument, and anything can be used to commit crime, but it is a matter of fact that Tornado was both used to commit crimes and made committing those crimes easier than they otherwise would have been (by sidestepping financial regulatory frameworks).
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      I philosophically disagree that something known to be used for a crime, or known to make crimes easier, ipso facto means that thing should be banned. I see a lot of benefits to society with privacy solutions like Tornado Cash. I also like paper cash, gold coins, and guns for that matter, all of which have been documented to be used in crimes and all of which are legal. I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.
      - treve 4y ago
        The discussion you are participating in does not make any philosophical claims, but just states how the law works. A libertarian disagreeing with this on a philosophical is not just obvious, it's also uninteresting.

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.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets. The link is explained in the post: in both instances, a human is the prime mover. No court in the world draws a distinction between "Joe kills Bob" and "Joe builds a Bob-killing robot that kills Bob." Similarly, no court in the world is likely to draw a distinction between "North Korea launders money" and "North Korea uses an autonomous program to launder money." It simply isn't relevant. > 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. To be clear: if attempt to obfuscate your cash transactions by structuring them beneath the limits that trigger CTR reporting, you're committing a crime. You can have reasonable opinions about whether that ought to be a crime, but it is absolutely not legal in the current regulatory scheme to intentionally avoid your reporting requirements. > Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd. We have a precise, material example of Tornado enabling a specific crime. That crime is the reason it's on the OFAC list, and it's stated in clear, precise language on the Treasury's site. Again: you can claim that Tornado is an instrument, and anything can be used to commit crime, but it is a matter of fact that Tornado was both used to commit crimes and made committing those crimes easier than they otherwise would have been (by sidestepping financial regulatory frameworks).
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    I philosophically disagree that something known to be used for a crime, or known to make crimes easier, ipso facto means that thing should be banned. I see a lot of benefits to society with privacy solutions like Tornado Cash. I also like paper cash, gold coins, and guns for that matter, all of which have been documented to be used in crimes and all of which are legal. I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.
    - treve 4y ago
      The discussion you are participating in does not make any philosophical claims, but just states how the law works. A libertarian disagreeing with this on a philosophical is not just obvious, it's also uninteresting.