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

Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 544 posts

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#71

Post by DennisP »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #9
mikece wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, somehow, we knew exactly who was doing it. Why the urgency to shut it down?

You could just read what treasury wrote and argue with facts instead of vague rhetoric about lazy law enforcement > “Today, Treasury is sanctioning Tornado Cash, a virtual currency mixer that launders the proceeds of cybercrimes, including those committed against victims in the United States,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson. “Despite public assurances oth…

There are two Tornado Cash entities: one is made of people, and the other is autonomous code running on chain. The OFAC action confuses those two, and it's not clear they have the authority to sanction code.

For much more on this, see the legal analysis by Coincenter: https://www.coincenter.org/analysis-what-is-and-what-is-not-...

Note that FinCEN does pay attention to this sort of distinction, and says that software providers are not subject to money laundering regulation.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#72

Post by res0nat0r »

lampshades wrote: post #23
yunohn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, a crypto mixer primarily used to launder money or evade taxes is *exactly the same* as highways and SMS.

Quoted post unavailable.

?

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#73

Post by lesuorac »

redox99 wrote: post #52
JustLurking2022 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a service specifically designed to facilitate money laundering. It's a bit like running a business that produces paperwork to make stolen cars indistinguishable from legal ones - there's no reason such a service should be allowed to exist.

That's like saying knives are designed to facilitate murder. TC is made for privacy, which either is or should be a basic right. Without tools such as TC if I send you money, show you some POAPs[1] I own, or otherwise interact in any way with my crypto, it is fairly simple to deduce or make educated guesses of how much crypto I own, who I send it to or from, and more. This has serious implications not only for privac…

> That's like saying knives are designed to facilitate murder.

There are a lot of laws banning knives of various sizes and constructions. I'm not sure you picked the example you want.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#74

Post by x86x87 »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #46
x86x87 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very limited way of looking at things. You're fine with banning X and Y because you don't see them impacting you. When Z is banned and you care about Z you'll have a rude awakening.

I think the poster was saying they are fine with that amount if laundry, because its more important for a free internet to exist.

After rereading I agree with you. It wasn't clear to me whem first reading it.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#75

Post by polygamous_bat »

x86x87 wrote: post #33
yunohn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in this, the authorities had the time/money to track down the hackers. The vast majority of tornado transactions are mostly illegal, but nobody cares enough to spend their efforts on them.

What a world we are living in. Mostly illegal. Huh. Do you have any data to back this claim? Also, should banks be banned if their customers are doind shady things outside of using their services?

If it's a mafioso bank used mostly by the mafia, then yes, absolutely, they should be investigated and shut down.

As for data, just as a first-order estimate, check out the rekt leaderboard [1] and see how many of the stories end with "and the stolen funds were routed through tornado, fin." If all crypto-adjacent crimes are reported to FBI at some point I am sure they have a much clearer statistics, but even as a civilian you can see that it's not small.

[1] https://rekt.news/leaderboard/

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#76

Post by ouid »

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

You seem to think that freedom means a world in which you are allowed to hide your assets from the government. You have never been allowed to do that. You're going to have to change the law, and because you live in more or less a democracy, you're going to have to convince people that its good to change the law.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#77

Post by yieldcrv »

This is the least spineless thing Brian Armstrong has ever publicly done

And I think we should commend him for that

since there really are consequences for his relationship with the government and Coinbase’s relationship with the government

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#78

Post by amalcon »

mikece wrote: post #5
cguess wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was used for tumbling, to the tune of $450m by the North Koreans. It's not a theoretical situation.

And yet, somehow, we knew exactly who was doing it. Why the urgency to shut it down?

Let's suppose you have Bob's Traditional Bank. They keep meticulous records, and comply with US government requests for them (regardless of what you think of such practices, let's just say that this particular bank happens to do those things). They also facilitate transactions on behalf of North Korea.

Bob's Traditional Bank would be sanctioned here, because transacting with North Korea in that way is what triggers these sanctions. This is why Tornado is being sanctioned. The privacy thing may or may not be illegal, despite its ineffectiveness, but the transacting with North Korea thing definitely is.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#79

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung »

dpkirchner wrote: post #21
sam0x17 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is akin to saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because a car was used one time in a heist.

It's more akin to saying people shouldn't be able to provide banking services if they don't have sufficient KYC practices.

What part of "trustless peer-to-peer electronic CASH", in Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper, did you not understand? There is no banking going on.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#80

Post by zeusk »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #69
woodruffw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. Banks exist to induce stability and liquidity (i.e., the efficient flow of capital) within the economy. Hot dog stands exist to sell hot dogs. Money exchanges exist to transfer currencies to (you guessed it) facilitate commerce in different regions. The hair you're attempting to split between "laundering" and "washing" does not exist in the financial world, and would not impress financial regulators.

The difference between laundering and washing doesn’t exist in current financial regulation. It does to those who believe in financial privacy.

Enlighten us with how washing differs from laundering then; because I haven't had the crypto koolaid yet.
Post reply on HN