5 ms·

> An entity (Tornado Cash) An entity? Can you link me to its physical, geographic address? Or its board of directors? Maybe its charter or mission statement

by jMyles 4y ago

> An entity (Tornado Cash) An entity? Can you link me to its physical, geographic address? Or its board of directors? Maybe its charter or mission statement? Do they have a revenue model? Can you clarify what transforms a deployed solidity document into "an entity"?

Shank 4y ago
The US broadly defines entity as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.” This is written in 31 CFR 510.305, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-510/subpart-C/section-510.305 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p.... This is one of the interesting intersections of US law where interpretation is everything. Until you can find a judge that wants to strictly define all of these words and the term “entity” to establish precisely what an entity is, or unless the code is rewritten, an entity can practically be anything OFAC wants it to be. Based on how this was written, I almost think that if a judge ruled that sanctioning the contract didn’t count, the entire ethereum network could easily be classified as an “entity” as a group of networked computers. The possibilities of this definition are quite profound.
- jMyles 4y ago
  Agreed. But even by this vague standard, it's an incredible stretch. Tornado Cash is a document, published on github. Anybody can deploy it, or fork it and deploy their fork, and many people have done that. If OFAC wanted to go after members of the $TORN DAO under the theory that, together, they represent an entity, then at least I can see some vague adherence to the rule of law (albeit one in which vagueness is abused in the ways that you point out). But they didn't do that, because they would be difficult, both logistically and politically. Instead, they designated a document, held on many thousands of computers around the world, a "specially designated national." This is a facially childish and unserious move, and is not befitting a state which wishes to be viewed as a serious arbiter of its laws. The designation letter from the Treasury Department[0] reads like something from The Onion. 0: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808
  - flangola7 4y ago
    What do you propose be done instead about things like Tornado Cash that would be more effective at stopping it?
    - jMyles 4y ago
      I don't even understand the question. It's like asking, "what can you imagine might be effective at stopping integer factorization?" Math is real. It works reliably. The idea that it can be "stopped" is just... I don't know - childish is the word that comes to mind.
      - flangola7 4y ago
        I mean as in a tool that streamlines money laundering and sanctions evasion. The underlying math/science is beside the point. The service tornado cash is ran on physical hardware owned by physical human beings who can be placed in handcuffs.
        jMyles 4y ago
        ...so, if that's the assertion (that _running an ethereum node_ is against the law), why not place those people in handcuffs? Why do this bizarre song-and-dance of writing a designation letter which passive-aggressively refers to an algorithm? There's nothing anybody can do to stop this particular piece - or any other piece - of math. And that comes as a relief to freedom-loving humans everywhere. So why pretend to make an effort to do so? Other than to decrease respect for the rule of law, what's being achieved here?
        flangola7 4y ago
        Fission and high end radar designs are just math too. We restrict those, which is both effective and does not degrade freedom or the rule of law. Your meandering suppositions are baseless and unsupported.
  - amluto 4y ago

by jMyles 4y ago

Shank 4y ago

The US broadly defines entity as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.” This is written in 31 CFR 510.305, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-510/subpart-C/section-510.305 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p.... This is one of the interesting intersections of US law where interpretation is everything. Until you can find a judge that wants to strictly define all of these words and the term “entity” to establish precisely what an entity is, or unless the code is rewritten, an entity can practically be anything OFAC wants it to be. Based on how this was written, I almost think that if a judge ruled that sanctioning the contract didn’t count, the entire ethereum network could easily be classified as an “entity” as a group of networked computers. The possibilities of this definition are quite profound.

jMyles 4y ago
Agreed. But even by this vague standard, it's an incredible stretch. Tornado Cash is a document, published on github. Anybody can deploy it, or fork it and deploy their fork, and many people have done that. If OFAC wanted to go after members of the $TORN DAO under the theory that, together, they represent an entity, then at least I can see some vague adherence to the rule of law (albeit one in which vagueness is abused in the ways that you point out). But they didn't do that, because they would be difficult, both logistically and politically. Instead, they designated a document, held on many thousands of computers around the world, a "specially designated national." This is a facially childish and unserious move, and is not befitting a state which wishes to be viewed as a serious arbiter of its laws. The designation letter from the Treasury Department[0] reads like something from The Onion. 0: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808 https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20220808
- flangola7 4y ago
  What do you propose be done instead about things like Tornado Cash that would be more effective at stopping it?
  - jMyles 4y ago
    I don't even understand the question. It's like asking, "what can you imagine might be effective at stopping integer factorization?" Math is real. It works reliably. The idea that it can be "stopped" is just... I don't know - childish is the word that comes to mind.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      I mean as in a tool that streamlines money laundering and sanctions evasion. The underlying math/science is beside the point. The service tornado cash is ran on physical hardware owned by physical human beings who can be placed in handcuffs.
      - jMyles 4y ago
        ...so, if that's the assertion (that _running an ethereum node_ is against the law), why not place those people in handcuffs? Why do this bizarre song-and-dance of writing a designation letter which passive-aggressively refers to an algorithm? There's nothing anybody can do to stop this particular piece - or any other piece - of math. And that comes as a relief to freedom-loving humans everywhere. So why pretend to make an effort to do so? Other than to decrease respect for the rule of law, what's being achieved here?
        flangola7 4y ago
        Fission and high end radar designs are just math too. We restrict those, which is both effective and does not degrade freedom or the rule of law. Your meandering suppositions are baseless and unsupported.
- amluto 4y ago