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

Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

fiod.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 827 posts

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#61

Post by closewith »

Tepix wrote: post #29

Wow, just wow. Am i alone in thinking this is not going to fly if all he did was write some software that helps with your financial anonymity? There must be more. Perhaps he also deployed it? That would be a different story. The article is quite murky in that regard. Perhaps they don't know yet. In there is an interesting paragraph explaining what Tornado Cash is: … The ( criminal ) origin of the cryptocurrencies is…

Anonymous cash transactions in the Netherlands over €10,000 are already illegal (https://www.amlc.eu/cash-limit/). The government intends to ban cash transactions over €3,000.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#62

Post by throwaway0a5e »

sph wrote: post #46
chaosite wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that he has lost the private keys.

Although Bitcoin is resistant to the "charismatic leader" problem, his second coming would give him incredible fame, following but also personal danger. Yet I do not think any human would resist a moment in the spotlight, if not to renounce its child and its current direction.

I think someone who believes that it will bring certain death could resist.

It wouldn't surprise me if he destroyed his private keys to prevent himself from ever succumbing to the temptation.

Those coins are of little value when using any of them would kick off a race to track you down and kidnap you with the intention of rubber-hosing the key out of you before going short on bitcoin. Having a secret in your head that can be converted into billions of dollars is not a good position to be in if you are not already a highly powerful individual with tons of people looking out for you.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#63

Post by rvnx »

Tepix wrote: post #38
rvnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems reasonable to expect that Ethereum operators share responsibility in case of usage of their network for malicious or criminal activity. They have the technical means to control what goes on there or not. Otherwise it's like if you run P2P nodes and claim pedo pictures aren't your problem.

That depends on what are reasonable technical means to prevent things. Is it reasonable for the postal service to examine every single piece of mail to check if it is illegal?

They are held responsible to a certain point yes, and shipping services actively control high-risk shipments (up to the point they check the box contents, for airplane shipping, for batteries for example).

It's forbidden to send money through mail in many places. When you go to the post office to send money, the post office verifies your identity, the payment method, the sanctions list, etc and keeps the records for the authorities.

If you decide to violate the rules and send cash in a letter, the postal service allows the authorities to access the raw packages and full information, and full access to it, whether to use cash sniffing dogs (they really exist), etc.

Also, a fundamental difference with crypto exchanges:

Whether you send large amount of cash for criminal activity via the postal service or whether you send a large amount of books the postal service isn't going to benefit more, so they don't have to encourage criminal activity.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#64

Post by ChrisLomont »

koolba wrote: post #21
ChrisLomont wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Not a valid comparison. Courts and law have long held the completely reasonable position that if the main intent of a product is not to commit crime, that those using it for a crime are held responsible, not the producer. Conversely, if a product is designed to facilitate crime, or is used significantly more for crime than not, then the liability star…

> This is the latter case. How is privacy not a legitimate use case? > According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money, that doesn’t mean selling them should be a crime.

>I’m pretty sure the majority

I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :)

And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were used significantly for crime, and added features to facilitate crime, and ignored laws requiring tracking criminals (which is what money processors have to follow), then the duffel bag maker would be criminally liable.

In the cast at hand, the company processes the transactions for criminals. That is vastly different than selling a duffel bag. And it runs afoul of criminal money laundering laws that all processors have to follow, and for good reason.

This is why the courts are the place to hash such stuff out - internet opinions are vastly inferior to people performing investigations using evidence.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#65

Post by chaosite »

sph wrote: post #46
chaosite wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that he has lost the private keys.

Although Bitcoin is resistant to the "charismatic leader" problem, his second coming would give him incredible fame, following but also personal danger. Yet I do not think any human would resist a moment in the spotlight, if not to renounce its child and its current direction.

Of course. Various people have claimed to be Satoshi over the years, but failed to provide any sort of proof. Satoshi could either actually be one of those people, or realize that without proof he would be subject to the same fate.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#66

Post by threeseed »

once_inc wrote: post #49
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if he only created the contract the developer essentially thumbed his nose at the state. That is the kind of "crime" that government takes very seriously. If they want to screw him they will. It's just a question of how thick the veneer of legitimacy on the screwage will be. It's not like this guy has some vocal political minority to back him up so there's not much to stop them.

Building a mixing service that allows people to buy stuff without their employers being able to track it is a legitimate, non-trivial reason. These mixers are privacy enhancers. Privacy is a general term, and doesn't have to relate to evading the government. If you don't want your employer to know you've bought an NFT from your company's direct competitor, that is a privacy request too.

Except that privacy is not some human right enshrined in law that usurps other laws.

If you facilitate money laundering that is still a crime even if the intent was for legitimate reasons like privacy.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#67

Post by School-Cotton »

koolba wrote: post #21
ChrisLomont wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Not a valid comparison. Courts and law have long held the completely reasonable position that if the main intent of a product is not to commit crime, that those using it for a crime are held responsible, not the producer. Conversely, if a product is designed to facilitate crime, or is used significantly more for crime than not, then the liability star…

> This is the latter case. How is privacy not a legitimate use case? > According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money, that doesn’t mean selling them should be a crime.

> I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money

I'm sure that isn't true. Most people anywhere in Mexico are civilians not involved in the drug trade.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#69

Post by LeeroyWasHere »

koolba wrote: post #21
ChrisLomont wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Not a valid comparison. Courts and law have long held the completely reasonable position that if the main intent of a product is not to commit crime, that those using it for a crime are held responsible, not the producer. Conversely, if a product is designed to facilitate crime, or is used significantly more for crime than not, then the liability star…

> This is the latter case. How is privacy not a legitimate use case? > According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money, that doesn’t mean selling them should be a crime.

Phantom Secure might be the closest example?

But there's definitely legitimate uses for Tornado Cash. The same way there's legitimate uses for cash.

14% of funds, yeah, not 14% of users... Big difference.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#70

Post by biglearner1day »

closewith wrote: post #61
Tepix wrote: post #29

Wow, just wow. Am i alone in thinking this is not going to fly if all he did was write some software that helps with your financial anonymity? There must be more. Perhaps he also deployed it? That would be a different story. The article is quite murky in that regard. Perhaps they don't know yet. In there is an interesting paragraph explaining what Tornado Cash is: … The ( criminal ) origin of the cryptocurrencies is…

Anonymous cash transactions in the Netherlands over €10,000 are already illegal ( https://www.amlc.eu/cash-limit/ ). The government intends to ban cash transactions over €3,000.

> Anonymous cash transactions

So not crypto.

Post reply on HN