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

801–810 of 827 posts

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#801

Post by sneed-oil »

giaour wrote: post #297
sneed-oil wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't actually legally have the right to hide your financial transactions besides Maybe you don't, but that's what happens by default when using cash

Cash is unwieldy in large amounts, which is why most authorities don't care about cash transactions. When cash is used at scale for anonymous transactions (e.g., when the US airlifted cargo planes full of cash to Iraq in 2004 to pay government workers without an Iraqi paper trail), it is international news. If tornado cash were just obscuring transactions that could have conceivably been finalized with cash by privat…

> If tornado cash were just obscuring transactions that could have conceivably been finalized with cash by private parties (~A 200 euro banknote's dimensions are about 153x77x0.113 mm, if we consider double that thickness (because unless they're brand new, banknotes tend to crumple) we get that 2,253,400 euros will have a volume of 30 liters, which should fit in a backpack. If you wanted to use the more common 50 euro banknote you could fit 615,650 € in 30 liters.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#802

Post by notch656a »

SigmundA wrote: post #797
notch656a wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide. my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things. Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be…

No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, conceale…

I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#803

Post by SigmundA »

notch656a wrote: post #802
SigmundA wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, conceale…

I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.

I am simply pointing to extensive case law affirmed by the Supreme Court that the right to bears arms in almost universally held to not be unlimited, which I agree with as do most even staunch conservatives.

There may be a disagreement on how limited the right is but your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#804

Post by notch656a »

SigmundA wrote: post #803
notch656a wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.

I am simply pointing to extensive case law affirmed by the Supreme Court that the right to bears arms in almost universally held to not be unlimited, which I agree with as do most even staunch conservatives. There may be a disagreement on how limited the right is but your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a…

In my experience the nuclear arms argument is almost exclusively used to try and get the counterparty to admit somehow infringements are legitimate. It's an attempt to paint the counterparty as extremist, when perhaps you mean more directly to accuse the writers of the 2nd amendment as extremists (and they were).

> your extreme viewpoint the even nuclear arms should not be regulated due to them not being called out explicitly in an amendment is obviously held by a very small extremist minority.

I'm not asserting nuclear arms shouldn't be "regulated." I'm asserting the method by which their regulation is legitimate, in my opinion, would be a constitutional amendment. You're attempt to paint me as an "extremist" is predicated on the false assumption that I've argued nuclear arms should not be regulated at all, when in fact my only assertion is that any regulation should be done in a way that makes it evident to the reader of the amendment that they are not protected.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#805

Post by phphphphp »

ziddoap wrote: post #798
phphphphp wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most industry protections against liabilities are predicated on compliance with expectations about responsibility: the protection against liability is earned. For example, firearm manufacturers are protected from being held liable for actions taken with their firearms as long as they comply with their legal responsibilities, like not selling firearms to children. If a firearms manufacturer sold firearms to children,…

> If you knowingly build software that can be used for money laundering You've retreated back to money laundering, but that is not what you originally were talking about. You were pretty clear that you were talking about any software which is used nefariously. Which I pointed out that pretty much any software can be used nefariously (e.g. ssh, browsers, hosting software, etc.), but you keep avoiding that.

I’m not avoiding it. There’s nuance. A piece of software that is specifically designed to enable a behaviour that is core to money laundering is different from a piece of software that can be used to engage in money laundering.

A web browser can be used to access a banking website through which you might engage in money laundering, sure, but that’s very different to a piece of software that can be used to hide the origin of funds.

The difference is like a kitchen utensil manufacturer vs. a gun manufacturer. A kitchen knife can be used to kill, a gun can be used to kill, but we hold gun manufacturers and kitchen utensil manufacturers to different standards because intent is an important aspect.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that intent doesn’t matter, but intent does matter, intent is a significant component of criminal law.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#806

Post by npc54321 »

akimball wrote: post #322
npc54321 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think you may mistake the individuals for the whole. HN as a social center can be corrupted and coopted without any of the original individuals changing their behaviors, simply by adding more individuals with different behaviors. If by "they" you mean the individuals, your statement would then be incorrect, while if you mean the community gestalt, it would be correct.

Good point.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#807

Post by jobs_throwaway »

joe_the_user wrote: post #790
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the state can arrest people and cause activity to stop We shall see if that's the case here. My guess is the state can't stop it

States can certainly control the behavior of ordinary businesses that operate in their borders. Maybe they can't directly stop some hacker somewhere from operating a mixer but if coins from a mixer are as illegal as coins from some crime, these businesses won't want to touch. I mean, the FBI has already shown it can see through mixers and arrest those who try to cash stolen bitcoins. China has made sale or possession…

>the FBI has already shown it can see through mixers and arrest those who try to cash stolen bitcoins

source?

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#808

Post by jobs_throwaway »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #768
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making money laundering harder is a good thing, no matter how many people here will try to convince you it isn't. What a useless, puerile argument

We don't generally speak in insults here.

just a description

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#809

Post by matthewdgreen »

sangnoir wrote: post #647
matthewdgreen wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining code is, in the US, likely a 1st Amendment-protected activity. Operating live services like a mixer (including any RPCs needed for Tornado) is not. (And yes I know this arrest was not made in the US, so that might be the distinction.)

> Maintaining code is, in the US, likely a 1st Amendment-protected activity. How did the 1A defense work out for sharing "Ghost gun" CAD files?

You can take a look at the Wikipedia site for Defense Distributed, which filed suit against the state department for blocking the distribution of CAD files under export control rules. It hasn't been smooth sailing, but many of the legal cases seem to be breaking in the direction of DD. Of course that case is more complicated given that there is both a 1A and a 2A argument.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#810

Post by jknutson »

tekknik wrote: post #757
babypuncher wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.

> Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm. Now, explain why you think an AR-15 is so dangerous? Tell me why you’re so focused on that gun when it’s both not the major gun used in mass shootings[1], and when more homicides are committed with pistols[2]. I know quite a lot about guns, and I can explain the obsession. AR-15’s are hopped up 22’s. Literally. They take a 55-ish…

Not the GP but I read that sentence as an anecdote using the AR-15 as a well-known example of a common firearm that is seen by most non-gun-owners to be on the upper end of the scale between .22cal and RPG/50-cal machine gun in terms of power and/or risk of abuse. That is to say that I do not believe that the GP was actively making a point against the AR-15, just that they were using it as an example anecdotally to lace their statement with a touch of irony or euphemism.
Post reply on HN