71–80 of 827 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's like if you run P2P nodes and claim pedo pictures aren't your problem. It's more like being arrested for developing a Bittorrent client
I think the people behind those clients were clear targets back in the day, before the advent of services like Netflix and Spotify alleviated some of the financial troubles experienced by the entertainment industry.
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. You're stating this as if it's fact when it's really not. Tornado Cash was certainly not designed with the intent of criminal activity, but for privacy - and as for "significantly more for crime than not", I've not seen any actual evidence for this, only evidence to the contrary. People claim it's mostly used for crime, but those are purely conjecture, at least the ones I've seen are.
Again, claims of privacy is not enough magic to make them free from legal requirements for money laundering laws. Privacy claims do not make banks immune from money laundering. Privacy claims do not make anyone free from meeting legal requirements.
>those are purely conjecture
The above states ~1/7 of all money flowing through can be tied to criminal behavior. If true, that's an astounding ratio that would rightfully put a bank out of business and key players in prison.
There’s a big legal distinction whether the developers are collecting fees from operation of the service, since that’s very different from merely developing open source software. I’m curious how this develops > It is suspected that persons behind this organisation have made large-scale profits from these transactions.
Exactly like original of developers of Bitcoin, it's not because they are not running the nodes themselves that they are not benefiting from facilitating ponzi or money laundering. Nodes are running the network, and developers earn through increased coin value and both are necessary part of the operations of the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Yep, it shows an incredible quantity of money laundering through the service.
Ah yes, arrest developers of open source privacy code and blame them for North Korea money laundering rather than going after the people actually committing crimes. Sounds about right. Privacy is not a crime, it’s a human right! Sorry that it makes the polices job harder, but our rights are more important. And didn’t we go through all this already in the 90s? Are we now gonna start arresting all cryptographers? This…
Actually they go after the people committing the crime AND those facilitating it.
> Privacy is not a crime, it’s a human right
(a) Not a human right, (b) not enshrined in any country's law, (c) does not absolve illegal behaviour.
This makes so little sense to me. I don't know how much information is made public by the Dutch justice system but I would really like to see an affidavit or something like it to understand what specific charges are levied against that developer.
Ah yes, arrest developers of open source privacy code and blame them for North Korea money laundering rather than going after the people actually committing crimes. Sounds about right. Privacy is not a crime, it’s a human right! Sorry that it makes the polices job harder, but our rights are more important. And didn’t we go through all this already in the 90s? Are we now gonna start arresting all cryptographers? This…
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.
I thought standard procedure here is you pay a fine that is a fraction of your revenue, not jail time. Like here: https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
This sentence provides a hint of what is going on: "Since Monday 8 August 2022 Tornado Cash has been placed by the US government on the OFAC sanctions list of America."
And the article is from 12 August. So NL would have informed US who then put them on a sanctions list.