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

451–460 of 827 posts

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#451

Post by smsm42 »

drexlspivey wrote: post #388
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the famed “Hacker” News users advocating for the Big State and against privacy.

Haven’t you heard? The new definition of hacker is a 40something year old making 300k a year writing adtech tracking code for a FAANG

Ageism here is unwarranted. I'd assume there are now more 40something years olds keeping the traditional hacker values (before "hacker" became to mean "dude stealing money from gullible strangers over the internet") than there are 20something years olds. Because they actually might have been the part of that old hacker culture (not sure if it even exists now?). Now even in the best tech schools they'd probably teach you the most important thing on the internet (after the adtech of course) is to make AIs to ban "hate speech" and "misinformation". And if the independent hacker culture still exists, it's certainly not easy to find among the noise.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#452

Post by kube-system »

gfodor wrote: post #442
kube-system wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to privacy ends at the moment that it is used as an excuse to evade the law. Every country recognizes warrants for this reason.

That's not how universal rights work. You can say privacy is not a universal right. But if it is, governments have no say on if it ever "ends."

Technically correct, I was just supporting my argument with evidence. The UDHR also doesn't recognize a right to absolute privacy. They only recognize a right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy. The idea that privacy is absolute and has no exceptions is very extremist, and not really supported by anyone other than absolutist internet commenters.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#453

Post by droopyEyelids »

beeboop wrote: post #383
dcolkitt wrote: post #260

A lot of the apologists for this are making arguments along the lines of "being decentralized doesn't make you exempt from the rules" or "imagine if a bank laundered this much money". The problem is it doesn't make sense to treat protocols like companies. And it definitely doesn't make sense to treat protocol devs as if they were the executives of those companies. The CEO of a bank and the lead dev of a protocol have…

Let's be clear - this isn't money laundering. Money laundering is taking illicit funds and making them look legitimately sourced. Tornado Cash does not do this, it is clear that the source is Tornado Cash, and it does nothing to legitimize funds. To spend crypto you still most likely need to convert it to fiat and that fiat money will still be under scrutiny for its source.

It absolutely is money laundering- which has three phases. Placement, Layering, and Integration.

The Layering phase is when the original source of money is concealed through transactions or bookkeeping tricks.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneylaundering.asp

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#454

Post by ROTMetro »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #357
chitowneats wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some will ... arrest anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood" This is a hysterical prediction.

Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws. Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.

The sentencing guidelines (which direct the sentence a judge will give you) get changed ex post facto all the f'ing time. So yes, you can be given an ex-post facto sentence, it's just that it's been 'lawyered' to be constitutional (we didn't change the criminal law, just the sentencing guideline that dictated the sentence you were given for commiting the crime) even though the rule is 'Every law that makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution'.

The sentencing range wasn't changed, just the sentence the judge was required to give, but the range isn't a rule so it's ok. And if the judge sentences outside the guideline the prosecutor can challenge for 'sentence outside guideline range'. The constitution has been lawyered into oblivion.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#457

Post by RavingGoat »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #357
chitowneats wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some will ... arrest anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood" This is a hysterical prediction.

Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws. Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.

You sound like a white person from a middle class or better upbringing.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#458

Post by throwaway2037 »

hansvm wrote: post #100
closewith wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The way I read that, large anonymous cash transactions in a non-professional capacity are still fine? Could I not gift somebody a million cash euros or buy a home with cash?

Ahh... Gift tax (in all advanced countries in the world)? I am confused. Is this a serious post?

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#460

Post by tgv »

pxeger1 wrote: post #109

If I create a new type of leather wallet and then North Korea uses it for money laundering, can I be charged for "facilitation"? What about if I discovered electricity, which lead to money laundering? Where is the line here, and who defines it?

The people who write viruses/trojans/RATs/malware, are they just making a product? What if they sell it?
Post reply on HN