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

481–490 of 544 posts

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

#481

Post by everfree »

vorpalhex wrote: post #470
dcolkitt wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ATM machine is not protected as speech. Courts have consistently ruled that software is protected speech. So, yes blockchains do make a substantial difference because they divorce the act of writing software (protected by the 1st Amendment) from the act of operating the business around that software. SCOTUS has consistently required an extremely high bar to regulating speech, so it's simply not enough to say "well…

An ATM isn't a dog either. Executing code isn't free speech. The code may be. The execution not so much.

In the case of Tornado Cash, the person who wrote and published the code isn't the person executing it.

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

#482

Post by bruiseralmighty »

eropple wrote: post #356
bruiseralmighty wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy exists even if the government violates it due to their tax schemes. A _right_ to privacy may even exist as a natural human right. If a country decides collectively that this is the case, then what ought to change is the tax policy, not every user service. We can argue over how easy it would be, but I would presume its possible for a government to switch over to taxing hard assets like land, machines, and ship…

> If a country decides collectively that this is the case, then what ought to change is the tax policy, Your post is largely meaningless because, while this line is inarguably true, this also hasn't happened and so AML and KYC are still a thing--and there's precious little to indicate that anyone really cares about it aside from starve-the-beast conservatives and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, and that's not a majority.…

I guess we differ on what rights are. I am arguing that a right to privacy including financial privacy could be a natural right and its recognition or lack thereof alone by the _current_ tax scheme cannot inform of of its existence or not.

The legality under existing laws has nothing to do with whether the right exists or not if its a natural right.

I also fail to see how one could construct a right to privacy that would include communications but not include financial transactions especially exchanges of value done over a btc-protocol (or one of its descendants) that exchange value with pure speech.

If congress and/or the judiciary was full of privacy enthusiasts, then the tax law would be changed majority be damned.

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

#484

Post by everfree »

intrasight wrote: post #297

The "we are not a person or organization" argument sort of breaks down once you file a lawsuit.

Serious question: Why?

The suit doesn't represent that Tornado Cash itself is a legal person, in fact it represents the opposite. "Tornado Cash" is not the plaintiff.

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

#485

Post by bruiseralmighty »

FireBeyond wrote: post #161
x86x87 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not one to defend Silk Road, but pause and think about it for a second: it enabled you to buy something deemed illegal by the authorities (drugs) in a safe manner and the products bought were higher quality than what you could buy on the street. Why was it a problem to begin with and why where significant resources used to shut it down? (Again, not defending it, and the founder was probably a scumbag, I am just askin…

> it enabled you to buy something deemed illegal by the authorities (drugs) in a safe manner and the products bought were higher quality than what you could buy on the street. Why was it a problem to begin with and why where significant resources used to shut it down? (Again, not defending it, and the founder was probably a scumbag, I am just asking the question) Because there was all sorts of white washing like this…

This is hyperopic viewpoint.

Because it would only remove the violence in our neighborhood and not the violence 1000s of miles away. This plan is not worth pursuing.

We can grant everything you said that the Silk Road may have only reduced violence in our immediate vicinity. That is still a huge success that should have been continued. Its not a failure for only reducing local violence.

That local win could have grown more globalized acceptance; reducing the niche cartels fill. Even if it had merely encouraged greater local production of illegal drugs that alone could have reduced cartel violence in Mexico.

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

#486

Post by bruiseralmighty »

ouid wrote: post #76
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.

History did not start in 1913. Income is not an asset, they have been two different things for longer than the United States has existed as a country. Most governments in recorded history have managed to exist without taxing income.

It would in fact be better live in a country with financial privacy where assets form the tax base instead of income. In terms of convincing the public, I think time will do the former and education the later.

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

#487

Post by Scoundreller »

downandout wrote: post #473
Pils wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you just deposit ETH in an exchange and then send it to a fresh address? Seems like a hassle to use TC for that specific use case.

Technically? Yes. But you run the risk of getting your account closed for this kind of thing.

And take on a bit more custodial risk

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

#488

Post by Karunamon »

intrasight wrote: post #425
Karunamon wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KYC regulations apply to corporations and businesses, not code.

They apply to what the president can apply them to. So if he's able to apply them to code, then they do apply.

I think the First Amendment might have something to say on the matter of "the president" unilaterally prohibiting people from interacting with code, something that has already been determined to be protected by the right.

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

#489

Post by bruiseralmighty »

jmyeet wrote: post #151
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 have to remember that access to the US financial system is a privilege not a right. To be granted that privilege, a financial institution has a number of obligations. Thesee include various KYC/AML obligations. So this isn't Tornado Cash "might be used for illegal purposes" so much as it's clear evidence they're failing to meet their legal obligations. There's a larger point here too: as much as proponents tour c…

So proposing a hypothetical. If the only issue here is obligation to the U.S. financial system what if the only on-off ramps to e-coins were cash only?

So as an individual, I convert my cash to e-coins through some e-coin dedicated ATM-like machine. And I can redeem my e-coins for cash at another e-coin-ATM somewhere else (maybe anywhere in the world).

Would coin pools like Tornado Cash then be acceptable? It would not be tied in any way to the credit or banking systems, it takes cash only, and then just a basic utility internet connection. Maintenance for the machines and paying the internet utility would just be a fraction of a percentage fee on each transaction.

Now all e-coins would simply exist as a privacy themed alternative ecosystem to cash.

Since we are not joining the U.S. financial system, these e-coins should not be expected to have any obligations to that system correct?

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

#490

Post by dmatech »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #383
300bps wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering requires a "predicate offense" Structuring is one of the most common methods of facilitating money laundering. No predicate offense required. It’s illegal all on its own. https://bsaaml.ffiec.gov/manual/Appendices/08

Structuring though is one of the dumbest, laziest and most arbitrary law ever. If you say that the limit is, say, max 100 K USD for something but plan to attack for structuring the person who did 5 times 100 K USD, then simply make the law clearer: make the law say 100 K USD max and, say, max 200 K USD over five years. But don't come after people who did respect the numbers written in the law for "structuring". It's…

I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straightforward.
Post reply on HN