3 ms·

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

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.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      I linked to several legal arguments as to why the person I’m speaking to is wrong. They are not a lawyer as their blog states. And my philosophical arguments go to the heart of the law, which is how much authority Treasury claims they have vs. what their actual authority is as written. I don’t even know what your comment adds to the discussion, it is very boring and also uninteresting and perhaps you should exit this thread before you degrade it further.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    We are not in meaningful disagreement about these things: the question is not whether the government is justified in banning anything that can be used to do crime (which is everything), but whether the government is justified in banning something that have an efficient cause in crime. That's what Tornado Cash is, and no amount of hemming and hawing around other potential uses meaningfully changes this.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago

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.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    I linked to several legal arguments as to why the person I’m speaking to is wrong. They are not a lawyer as their blog states. And my philosophical arguments go to the heart of the law, which is how much authority Treasury claims they have vs. what their actual authority is as written. I don’t even know what your comment adds to the discussion, it is very boring and also uninteresting and perhaps you should exit this thread before you degrade it further.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  We are not in meaningful disagreement about these things: the question is not whether the government is justified in banning anything that can be used to do crime (which is everything), but whether the government is justified in banning something that have an efficient cause in crime. That's what Tornado Cash is, and no amount of hemming and hawing around other potential uses meaningfully changes this.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago