3 ms·

> They're still out there running right now, and nobody could shut them down if they wanted to. No, but the US could start arresting validators on AML charges,

> They're still out there running right now, and nobody could shut them down if they wanted to. No, but the US could start arresting validators on AML charges, and no doubt, many people here would support this too. > They might have hosted some user interface code; I don't know. That's just a static website though talking only to your wallet app. Somewhat similar to the fight around whether the piratebay is culpable for copyright violations. Many geeks used to support the piratebay. The TC interface is hosted on IPFS. Can IPFS gateway operators not blocking the content be arrested on AML charges?

Hizonner 3y ago
I think some, maybe all, US validators are refusing to include Tornado transactions in their blocks. But unless all validators do it, that just increases the latency. They could go after people for accepting and building on top of other people's blocks with such transactions in them. But I suspect they'd prefer not to have to do that, because the more rarefied the "interactions" they try to enforce against, the more chance they have of courts telling them they're beyond their statutory authority, or conceivably even of authority they actually do have getting repealed. I haven't looked into it in any detail, but I suspect their authority for the Tornado sanctions is actually pretty shaky. They can sanction any entity, but it's not clear, to me at least, that a smart contract is an "entity" in the sense intended by the legislation they're presently relying on for all of this. That means that after all the lawsuits shake out, they may have to ask for new legislation to give them authority. I suspect they'd eventually get that authority, but it's harder to sell it to legislators if anybody can say you've been overreaching. Clarification on edit: Their authority for the sanctions against interacting with the smart contracts looks weak. I don't know about the company or the people; those may be fully within their authority, depending on what they were actually doing. But the smart contracts are the heart of the whole thing. And OFAC seems to be trying its best to muddy the distinction.

Hizonner 3y ago

I think some, maybe all, US validators are refusing to include Tornado transactions in their blocks. But unless all validators do it, that just increases the latency. They could go after people for accepting and building on top of other people's blocks with such transactions in them. But I suspect they'd prefer not to have to do that, because the more rarefied the "interactions" they try to enforce against, the more chance they have of courts telling them they're beyond their statutory authority, or conceivably even of authority they actually do have getting repealed. I haven't looked into it in any detail, but I suspect their authority for the Tornado sanctions is actually pretty shaky. They can sanction any entity, but it's not clear, to me at least, that a smart contract is an "entity" in the sense intended by the legislation they're presently relying on for all of this. That means that after all the lawsuits shake out, they may have to ask for new legislation to give them authority. I suspect they'd eventually get that authority, but it's harder to sell it to legislators if anybody can say you've been overreaching. Clarification on edit: Their authority for the sanctions against interacting with the smart contracts looks weak. I don't know about the company or the people; those may be fully within their authority, depending on what they were actually doing. But the smart contracts are the heart of the whole thing. And OFAC seems to be trying its best to muddy the distinction.