3 ms·

I don't think this is unprecedented: the USG's reasoning (appears) to be that all actions here were ultimately the product of human behavior. Put another way:

I don't think this is unprecedented: the USG's reasoning (appears) to be that all actions here were ultimately the product of human behavior. Put another way: it's still a crime to kick puppies, even if you only indirectly kick puppies through your newly-invented fully-automatic Puppy Kicker 3000. Edit: to refine the analogy: it doesn't stop being a Puppy Kicker 3000 just because you add a screening phase that eliminates puppies designated by the American Kennel Club.

nabakin 3y ago
Your analogy would only make sense if Tornado Cash (Puppy Kicker 3000) was created for the purpose of money laundering (kicking puppies), but it seems like it was created for consumer privacy reasons.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Privacy for consumers of money transmitting services is called money laundering.
  - Ar-Curunir 3y ago
    Seems like cash users (everyone) and cash issuers (the government) are money launderers under this exceedingly broad definition.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Transmitting cash for others without reporting it would in fact make you a money launderer as well.
    - spacemanspiff01 3y ago
      Try doing things with large amounts of cash, and see what happens. Take a million dollars and buy something with it. Even just depositing 10k in a bank account gets reported to the feds, and possibly investigated (And using lower amounts is illegal under structuring.) That's setting aside the instances of civil asset forfeiture where money is seized because driving with large amounts of cash is assumed to be the product of a crime. So yeah, whether it's a good policy or not, it definitely seems to be the view.
  - nabakin 3y ago
    No it is not. Maybe you need to look up the definition of money laundering.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I think what it seems to you is different from what it seems to others. But this is the reason we have a court system -- a judge will end up deciding if TC intentionally allowed for money laundering and if TC violated KYC/AML laws.
  - nabakin 3y ago
    Sure and if their intent was to make a tool for money laundering or they attempted to subvert the law, I'm all for it
sneak 3y ago
If someone took the Tornado Cash contract source code and redeployed it on Ethereum under a new contract address today and people began using it, do you think someone deploying such a contract should face similar charges? Should the original developers face additional charges for that? What if the original developers only published the contracts but never deployed them on Ethereum, leaving that up to someone else to do? Is it the author or the deployer or the user who is liable? I mean, someone has to be liable if it didn't exist before and then it did, but if it's the author and not the deployer, you could be charged for code you wrote entirely offline and published to GitHub (if someone else later deploys it and it sees use).
- woodruffw 3y ago
  My “should” doesn’t enter into it. What matters is whether it’s indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise, which it is.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  In this case the "devs" are the owners and operators and they profit on the contract being run. The answer to all of your questions is the same. When you run this code to facilitate money laundering the deployer gets in trouble and that's how it should be I can't imagine how else it could work.
- GauntletWizard 3y ago
  Yes, no, deployer. The code is absolutely free speech, the application of it is not. I can sell you a book that says how to circumvent financial controls, I can even give a talk about circumventing financial controls, what I can't do is fly to North Korea to talk about it. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61090064 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61090064
qot 3y ago
No, put another way this is Nike getting punished for creating a shoe that was used to kick puppies.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The purpose of kicking puppies is not embedded in the concept of a Nike sneaker.
- rajamaka 3y ago
  Creating a shoe specifically designed for kicking puppies with enhanced puppy kicking features and instructions on how to kick puppies with said shoe
  - miracle2k 3y ago
    Which is, and certainly should be, entirely legal.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  No, in this analogy the punishment is aimed at Nike employees who after creating a shoe for kicking puppies also operated puppy-kicking-as-a-service with that shoe. The people charged are the subset of the Tornado Cash devs who ran the service, not for solely developing some code.

nabakin 3y ago

Your analogy would only make sense if Tornado Cash (Puppy Kicker 3000) was created for the purpose of money laundering (kicking puppies), but it seems like it was created for consumer privacy reasons.

CPLX 3y ago
Privacy for consumers of money transmitting services is called money laundering.
- Ar-Curunir 3y ago
  Seems like cash users (everyone) and cash issuers (the government) are money launderers under this exceedingly broad definition.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Transmitting cash for others without reporting it would in fact make you a money launderer as well.
  - spacemanspiff01 3y ago
    Try doing things with large amounts of cash, and see what happens. Take a million dollars and buy something with it. Even just depositing 10k in a bank account gets reported to the feds, and possibly investigated (And using lower amounts is illegal under structuring.) That's setting aside the instances of civil asset forfeiture where money is seized because driving with large amounts of cash is assumed to be the product of a crime. So yeah, whether it's a good policy or not, it definitely seems to be the view.
- nabakin 3y ago
  No it is not. Maybe you need to look up the definition of money laundering.
JohnFen 3y ago
I think what it seems to you is different from what it seems to others. But this is the reason we have a court system -- a judge will end up deciding if TC intentionally allowed for money laundering and if TC violated KYC/AML laws.
- nabakin 3y ago
  Sure and if their intent was to make a tool for money laundering or they attempted to subvert the law, I'm all for it

sneak 3y ago

If someone took the Tornado Cash contract source code and redeployed it on Ethereum under a new contract address today and people began using it, do you think someone deploying such a contract should face similar charges? Should the original developers face additional charges for that? What if the original developers only published the contracts but never deployed them on Ethereum, leaving that up to someone else to do? Is it the author or the deployer or the user who is liable? I mean, someone has to be liable if it didn't exist before and then it did, but if it's the author and not the deployer, you could be charged for code you wrote entirely offline and published to GitHub (if someone else later deploys it and it sees use).

woodruffw 3y ago
My “should” doesn’t enter into it. What matters is whether it’s indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise, which it is.
thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
In this case the "devs" are the owners and operators and they profit on the contract being run. The answer to all of your questions is the same. When you run this code to facilitate money laundering the deployer gets in trouble and that's how it should be I can't imagine how else it could work.
GauntletWizard 3y ago
Yes, no, deployer. The code is absolutely free speech, the application of it is not. I can sell you a book that says how to circumvent financial controls, I can even give a talk about circumventing financial controls, what I can't do is fly to North Korea to talk about it. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61090064 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61090064

qot 3y ago

No, put another way this is Nike getting punished for creating a shoe that was used to kick puppies.

woodruffw 3y ago
The purpose of kicking puppies is not embedded in the concept of a Nike sneaker.
rajamaka 3y ago
Creating a shoe specifically designed for kicking puppies with enhanced puppy kicking features and instructions on how to kick puppies with said shoe
- miracle2k 3y ago
  Which is, and certainly should be, entirely legal.
PeterisP 3y ago
No, in this analogy the punishment is aimed at Nike employees who after creating a shoe for kicking puppies also operated puppy-kicking-as-a-service with that shoe. The people charged are the subset of the Tornado Cash devs who ran the service, not for solely developing some code.