I'm sorry if you are genuinely trying to participate in good faith; your comments are really not making sense to me. > The list says “Digital Currency Address”

I'm sorry if you are genuinely trying to participate in good faith; your comments are really not making sense to me. > The list says “Digital Currency Address”, not software, I don't understand what you're saying here. The addresses in question are simply the addresses which pointed to copies of the EVM bytecode in question at the time the letter was written. There are many more now of course. If they instead used a URL (and a checksum for verification), do you then acknowledge that the sanction is against a document? What's the difference? An ethereum address (in the case of a deployed contract) simply points at a piece of software that can be run in a verifiable way. Just like a URL+checksum. > they don’t care about how the code works, only that it was involved in illegal activities. They have taken no action against anybody whom they purport to have engaged in illegal activities. If they did, they'd at least gain some credibility in the minds of the larger legal profession. As it stands, this particular sanction is making nobody happy. > There’s nothing in there which says you couldn’t run your own copy with different addresses The FAQ says, "While engaging in any transaction with Tornado Cash or its blocked property or interests in property is prohibited for U.S. persons..." I agree with the EFF's concern here that this appears to mean that indeed you'd run afoul of the law is you ran your own copy with different addresses. And if you're right, and that all the redeploys of the contract are completely legal and fine for use now, isn't that even _more_ capricious? What makes those OK, but the above addresses not OK? If someone from NK tumbles a single penny through a contract, does that suddenly make the address in question illegal, while all other identical deployments of the contract are not illegal? The whole thing is just totally unserious.