Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 526 posts

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#511

Post by sneed-oil »

tekknik wrote: post #509
sneed-oil wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its use is offering a level of privacy that is at least as good as the one a credit card offers. On the Ethereum blockchain anybody you transact with can see your transaction history.

because your average citizen needs anonymity when buying everyday items? So much so that we need to allow money laundering? No, this still isn’t a valid use.

Yes, for example a teenager with religious parents might not want them to know that they're buying contraceptives, or a buyer of illegal drugs might not want the government to know it. As long as there are anonymous payment methods such as cash, money laundering remains a possibility. Besides, getting ETH from Tornado Cash is not comparable to money laundering because whoever will be paid with those funds will have a strong suspicion that they were stolen or came from some other type of illicit activity.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#512

Post by dogman144 »

realityking wrote: post #412
dogman144 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoW uses less energy than global dishwasher usage. Do you feel similar sentiments against Home Depot and dishwasher users? Facebook data centers aren’t pretty either in this regard. Edit - additionally, tornado runs on eth, which is soon to be env-friendly PoS.

> eth, which is soon to be env-friendly PoS. The switch has been delayed 6(!) times since 2017. It‘s perpetually happening “soon”. I believe it when it’s actually live.

It’s live on testnests now so coming for main chain.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#513

Post by ETH_start »

tiahura wrote: post #504
ETH_start wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary responsibility falls on the prosecutor. The prison sentence they sought for Swartz was not by any stretch justified. This injustice seriously endangered not just Swartz's mental health, but his prospects for a fulfilling life, even had he lived.

A prosecutor doesn’t seek a sentence until after the defendant is found guilty. Moreover, judges don’t care about prosecutors or what they think. And, sentences are largely determined by sentencing guidelines. Rich white kids with no prior convictions don’t go to prison for stealing library books.

The prosecutors choose the charges, and did not have to choose charges that carried a maximum sentence of 35 years, which is almost a death sentence.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#514

Post by tekknik »

sneed-oil wrote: post #511
tekknik wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because your average citizen needs anonymity when buying everyday items? So much so that we need to allow money laundering? No, this still isn’t a valid use.

Yes, for example a teenager with religious parents might not want them to know that they're buying contraceptives, or a buyer of illegal drugs might not want the government to know it. As long as there are anonymous payment methods such as cash, money laundering remains a possibility. Besides, getting ETH from Tornado Cash is not comparable to money laundering because whoever will be paid with those funds will have a…

They can use cash for these cases. So no, still not a valid use case to allow for blatant money laundering.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#515

Post by egorfine »

darkcha0s wrote: post #499
egorfine wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know right! Just like the browser you are using to post this comment.

That's a false equivalence and you know it. A browser and a coin mixer have 2 very different core audiences, aiming to do very different things. I don't know anyone who has legitimate uses for a coin mixer other than laundering/covering their tracks.

> I don't know anyone who has legitimate uses for a coin mixer other than laundering/covering their tracks.

Thank you for writing "I don't know anyone" instead of a more typical "no one ever".

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#516

Post by nuclearnice1 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #253
nuclearnice1 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your analysis. Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. Retroactive punishment leaves people guessing what actions might or might not be punished.

> Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. I think your analysis is flawed. They didn't come up with some new law and apply it to these people ex post facto. These accounts were contributing to the money laundering (per accusations, albeit indirectly). Another way to look at it: if these people were contributing knowingly to a project that was laundering money, should they be punish…

I agree with this analysis.

If they are being punished for money laundering committed in the past while money laundering was illegal, that’s good enforcement.

If they are being punished for previous lawful contribution to an entity that was in the future sanctioned, that’s bad enforcement.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#517

Post by sneak »

Bedon292 wrote: post #500
sneak wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> still being understanding of GitHub trying to cut ties with the sanctioned entity What is the name of this sanctioned entity that GitHub supposedly cut ties with? You'll note that none of the developers who had their accounts suspended were themselves sanctioned.

Tornado Cash, which had an organization on GitHub and the developers were members of that organization. I don't know if I agree with the decision but I certainly understand why it would be made by a lawyer trying to ensure they are in compliance with a sanction as soon as possible.

GitHub organizations are not legal entities.

As far as I know, Tornado Cash is not a legal entity either.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#518

Post by sneed-oil »

tekknik wrote: post #514
sneed-oil wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, for example a teenager with religious parents might not want them to know that they're buying contraceptives, or a buyer of illegal drugs might not want the government to know it. As long as there are anonymous payment methods such as cash, money laundering remains a possibility. Besides, getting ETH from Tornado Cash is not comparable to money laundering because whoever will be paid with those funds will have a…

They can use cash for these cases. So no, still not a valid use case to allow for blatant money laundering.

If they don't know a dealer for the drugs they want they might decide to buy them online with cryptocurrency, and that's where a service like Tornado Cash is useful. Cash can be laundered too.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#519

Post by dcow »

ETH_start wrote: post #513
tiahura wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A prosecutor doesn’t seek a sentence until after the defendant is found guilty. Moreover, judges don’t care about prosecutors or what they think. And, sentences are largely determined by sentencing guidelines. Rich white kids with no prior convictions don’t go to prison for stealing library books.

The prosecutors choose the charges, and did not have to choose charges that carried a maximum sentence of 35 years, which is almost a death sentence.

What judge would have given the max sentence for this case?

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#520

Post by ETH_start »

dcow wrote: post #519
ETH_start wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prosecutors choose the charges, and did not have to choose charges that carried a maximum sentence of 35 years, which is almost a death sentence.

What judge would have given the max sentence for this case?

The judge doesn't have to give the max sentence for the charges the prosecutor chooses impacting the sentence given.
Post reply on HN