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

141–150 of 544 posts

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

#141

Post by realce »

thefreeman wrote: post #136
realce wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show me any statement in US law where such a practice is illegal? What you're describing sounds exactly like a casino.

Do you think you can just anonymously cash out a million dollars in casino chips with no identification or KYC happening?

Do you think the statements "sounds like" and "is exactly" are the same thing? Almost like your point is that there's distinct legislation targeting a distinct pathway of money laundering, just like my original point was?

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

#142

Post by thefreeman »

mikece wrote: post #15
wil421 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should North Korea be allowed to steal and hack from other country’s people and organizations? It should be shut down immediately. I feel like your trying to say NK and Tornado should be able to do illegal activities that harm people. Just because you don’t like the police or something.

The very fact (or assumed fact) that we know North Korea is using this undercuts the argument that we need to shut this down because it allows for anonymous money laundering. (By definition: the only way money laundering can be "dangerous" is if it cannot be detected or the players identified.)

Just because they know they sent money in doesn't mean they know where and how the money was distributed on the way out. Which is literally the whole point of sanctioning it.

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

#143

Post by helen___keller »

dannyw wrote: post #120
helen___keller wrote: post #102

I kind of agree that Treasury should not have exactly this power to ban Tornado protocol. However, I believe Treasury certainly has the power to ban all transactions with networks hosting money laundering protocols. It would certainly be worse for crypto if it were illegal to buy sell ETH and friends because their networks host Tornado protocol. I see this attempt to moderate the network itself as “going easy” on cry…

Moderation is generally not required under US law. For example, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provide safe harbor provisions: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider'. It doesn't matter if I run a site with 10 users or 100 million users: the law's provisions and protections…

Sorry to be clear, I’m not claiming moderation is legally required, I’m claiming it effectively becomes necessary for a network to avoid stepping on landmines.

For example, it’s impossible to run a social network website of 100 million users without users uploading illegal content. Moderation is a necessity to avoid being taken down by the feds for hosting illegal content.

I agree that treasury doesn’t have the right to sanction code. They do have the right to ban exchanges from exchanging ETH. However, nobody wants that, so they’d rather try and extend their powers to effectively become ETH moderators.

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

#144

Post by salawat »

realce wrote: post #63
polygamous_bat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ran an establishment where people would come in with big bags of cash with dubious source, swirl them around in a big vat, and someone else would come in with a chit to take out some cash from your vat, I am sure your establishment will get investigated and shut down. In this way it's no different from the real world. Just because it's online doesn't make it ok.

Can you show me any statement in US law where such a practice is illegal? What you're describing sounds exactly like a casino.

https://bsaaml.ffiec.gov/references/regulations

Here ya go.

By the by, all of this is to be known or planned out before becoming a money transmitter.

I.e., if you cannot do this, you are not legally allowed to serve as a money transmitter.

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

#145

Post by sam0x17 »

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.

Right. Fuck KYC. Just let people use money and actually solve crimes instead of just blocking transactions and infringing on people's privacy like crazy. Digital cash is still a pipe-dream because of this censorship/no-privacy/gov owns your money you don't mentality.

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

#146

Post by pigtailgirl »

woodruffw wrote: post #129
pigtailgirl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-- as it was explained to me (I don't crypto) - because everything is public - you might want to disassociate (wash) transactions from yourself for perfectly legitimate reasons - not really needed in traditional finance as people typically don't have access to your bank account - however - this is not necessarily the same as wanting to take money you gained illegitimately and make it legitimate (launder) --

This is the hair splitting I mentioned: no government in the world cares that you're doing money laundering because you're opted into a public-by-default money transfer system. The answer is to simply not use an immutable public ledger for your finances, since you're not required to. The government will not carve out a subset of crimes because of an unnecessary self-imposed restriction on financial privacy.

-- by the same token - it's a bit uncouth to support and provide frameworks of legitimacy for "future focused technology projects" - however not enable services that account for edge cases in said new systems - I generally agree with you - but playing the devils advocate a bit - the crypto folks should probably be able to wash their "cash" if the reporting parameters are implemented correctly - no? --

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

#147

Post by georgyo »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #132

Mixers never fail to astonish me. They are explicitly a product to facilitate money laundering. They are marketed as a way to wash illicit funds. And then the folks who run them get mad when law enforcement tries to shut them down?

I think it is more crazy that that are so openly breaking the law.

The same is true with all the loto and gambling crypto sites. They run without any oversight and are blatantly breaking the law.

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

#148

Post by woodruffw »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #146
woodruffw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the hair splitting I mentioned: no government in the world cares that you're doing money laundering because you're opted into a public-by-default money transfer system. The answer is to simply not use an immutable public ledger for your finances, since you're not required to. The government will not carve out a subset of crimes because of an unnecessary self-imposed restriction on financial privacy.

-- by the same token - it's a bit uncouth to support and provide frameworks of legitimacy for "future focused technology projects" - however not enable services that account for edge cases in said new systems - I generally agree with you - but playing the devils advocate a bit - the crypto folks should probably be able to wash their "cash" if the reporting parameters are implemented correctly - no? --

Sure: if they comply with KYC and AML, they are welcome to use whatever fakakta financial system they please.

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

#149

Post by helen___keller »

dcolkitt wrote: post #123
helen___keller wrote: post #102

I kind of agree that Treasury should not have exactly this power to ban Tornado protocol. However, I believe Treasury certainly has the power to ban all transactions with networks hosting money laundering protocols. It would certainly be worse for crypto if it were illegal to buy sell ETH and friends because their networks host Tornado protocol. I see this attempt to moderate the network itself as “going easy” on cry…

The reality is Treasury does not have the political capital to outlaw Ethereum. It's a $200 billion asset that one in ten Americans and many of the largest pensions, hedge funds, and Biden's largest donors are invested in.

Yes. That’s why they would rather try and moderate crypto networks rather than ban.

If they don’t succeed, I’d expect more heavy handed attempts by other branches of government.

I don’t think the government will ever give up, in large part because I think there is political capital and mandate to regulate crypto (just not ban it). If crypto crashes even further, a full ban might be possible some day.

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

mikece wrote: post #15
wil421 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should North Korea be allowed to steal and hack from other country’s people and organizations? It should be shut down immediately. I feel like your trying to say NK and Tornado should be able to do illegal activities that harm people. Just because you don’t like the police or something.

The very fact (or assumed fact) that we know North Korea is using this undercuts the argument that we need to shut this down because it allows for anonymous money laundering. (By definition: the only way money laundering can be "dangerous" is if it cannot be detected or the players identified.)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN