Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash • Hacker News Board

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#751

Post by thebradbain » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 11:21 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #447

thebradbain wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, if abortion is considered murder, why should it be legal to fund illegal abortions? We generally don't allow people to fund criminal activity for good reasons. Because it's not murder. Legislating that it is does not make it so. Full stop. That's like a government trying to legislate that the sky must always be blue, or that it's illegal to frown, or that 2+2=5. Just because it's a law does not make it just…

Murder is a legal category, it can be whatever we define it to be, so if legislation makes abortion murder then it is. Is it intentionally ending the life of a human being? Well, what life, what is a human being? It's intentionally terminating a pregnancy? Yes. Is that bad? Well, if the would-be-mother doesn't want it it's definitely bad, and if the would-be-mother wants it then it definitely seems cruel to not do it…

“If legislation makes abortion murder then it is.”

I fundamentally disagree. You objectively cannot “kill” something that is not “alive”. That is just a fact of life itself. A government can legislate all they want, but it does not make an unborn fetus any more alive. And thus any law rooted in this idea is fundamentally absurd, preposterous, and so downright stupid that on the principle alone (aside from the many others) any such ban shouldn’t be followed.

To entertain the idea that government can legislate whatever it wants is to imply that a government can dictate the laws of physics. It’s just nonsensical.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#752

Post by tim333 » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 11:26 AM UTC

sph wrote: post #36

Tepix wrote: post #29

Wow, just wow. Am i alone in thinking this is not going to fly if all he did was write some software that helps with your financial anonymity? There must be more. Perhaps he also deployed it? That would be a different story. The article is quite murky in that regard. Perhaps they don't know yet. In there is an interesting paragraph explaining what Tornado Cash is: … The ( criminal ) origin of the cryptocurrencies is…

Satoshi has demonstrated inhuman levels of restraint. The only explanation is that he is dead. The others are that he is not human, or that it's a committee defying Hanlon's razor: i.e. not governed by stupidity like most human affairs, but malice. Both are equally improbable.

I think most people in the space have a pretty good idea who it is, quite likely the guy who made the predecessor. The important thing is it's ambiguous and unproven which stops this kind of legal stuff.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#753

Post by sgjohnson » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:03 PM UTC

internet_user wrote: post #722

preseinger wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only place on earth where gun ownership is considered a freedom rather than a threat to civil society is America.

Wrong. Czech Republic is a shall issue country in the heart of otherwise gunless Europe. 500 year long gun tradition. The only two times gun ownership/carry was suspended during those 500 years was under Nazi and Soviet occupation. Even foreigners from friendly nations can obtain a permit and carry, not even the USA doesn’t do it. Self-defence with deadly force enshrined in the constitution. Lower homicide rates than…

> Even foreigners from friendly nations can obtain a permit and carry, not even the USA doesn’t do it.

People admitted under ESTA can legally possess a firearm (state law still applies). The 2nd amendment rights are the same for Green Card holders as they are for U.S. citizens, and for everyone else there’s the hunting permit loophole.

What do you mean, even the USA doesn’t do it?

In Czech Republic you need to take an exam on weapons law, which you must take in Czech.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#754

Post by Arnt » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:11 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #121

biglearner1day wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, but then they would imprison the CEO and not the developer. While they do get blamed, the Netherlands doesn't seem to care all that much. They seem very selective with how they react to supposed money laundering https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ing-groep-settlement-mone... https://www.dw.com/en/how-ing-bank-in-poland-helped-russians...

They key difference is this: > ING’s Chief Executive Ralph Hamers said no individual at the bank was found to be responsible for the failures Closed source means it is easy to hide whose fault it was, and then all you can do is fine the company since you can't arrest everyone. This is also why companies are so keen on deleting old message logs etc, to avoid leaders going to prison.

I heard on IRC that the person they arrested was the one who generally merged PRs. With closed source the closest equivalent is the leader of the development team. I would be surprised if a law enforcement agency is unable to locate that developer.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#755

Post by tim333 » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:19 PM UTC

MrPatan wrote: post #524

sph wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi has demonstrated inhuman levels of restraint. The only explanation is that he is dead. The others are that he is not human, or that it's a committee defying Hanlon's razor: i.e. not governed by stupidity like most human affairs, but malice. Both are equally improbable.

Yes! Plus Faketoshi most likely waited until the person/people he knew (or strongly suspected) were Satoshi were dead to launch his scams. Less chance of a forum post saying "I'm not Craig Wright".

It would be rather funny if Satoshi did that. Though having faketoshi out there probably increases the deniability.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#756

Post by tekknik » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:27 PM UTC

sgjohnson wrote: post #598

Brybry wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Taking some leads to all" logic doesn't really follow. If that idea applied then the US would already not have guns as many types of firearms (ex. fully automatic) and weapons (explosive munitions) are heavily restricted (and have been for a very long time).

> are heavily restricted They aren’t. Just pay the $200 tax and wait for the ATF to process your transfer form. (3 months to a year, generally) Unless explicitly banned your state, if you can legally own a firearm, you can legally own an NFA item. Including explosives and automatic firearms. Which is why the NFA is generally bullshit. It’s pointless extra bureaucracy that ultimately achieves nothing but delays.

Why is this downvoted? This is very much true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#757

Post by tekknik » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:35 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #513

seanw444 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking some leads to all. It's not something that should be compromised on. Gun restrictions won't end until ownership is so legally complex and time consuming that nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Of course it won't be an outright ban. That would never succeed. The frog in boiling water analogy applies here perfectly.

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 grain bullet and stack a lot of powder behind it. For reference the “not at all dangerous” 22 rimfire the government wants everybody to move to has a 40-ish grain bullet. What this means is low recoil, with good power. Coupled with relatively cheap ammo, you can sport shoot, compete and defend your farm with a single gun. Further, the AR platform is highly modifiable. I can swap uppers and change the caliber entirely. I can have an upper used for sport shooting, and a different one for hunting.

1: https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-l...

2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?...

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#758

Post by zomglings » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 12:45 PM UTC

km3r wrote: post #406

zomglings wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the purpose of this code is? There are people operating on blockchains in which transaction parameters are a matter of public record who: 1. May not want individual amounts and recipients to be publicly inspectable. 2. And are not criminals. It may not be a right, but Tornado Cash is absolutely a tool to increase privacy. It is not solely for criminals to liquidate blockchain assets.

Even if there is people who want that, that doesn't justify it. Privacy has limits, and there is some really bad people using crypto to transfer assets. Banks are required to report suspicious transactions, so working around banking laws by using crypto is clearly breaking the spirit of those regulations. If an individual wants privacy, there is a more standing if they do it themselves, but when a third party gets in…

You are assuming that people using Tornado Cash are only seeking privacy from governments.

You could want to use Tornado Cash for other forms of privacy, while still respecting your obligations to governments.

For example, suppose you are a company that pays salaries in tokens on the Ethereum blockchain but you want to do this without disclosing each employee's salary to the rest of their peers. You could fund a bunch of fresh accounts through Tornado Cash and distribute private keys to your employees off chain so they could access their funds.

Everyone involved could be completely respectful of taxes, etc. but they would still benefit from the privacy offered by Tornado Cash.

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#759

Post by thesz » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 1:02 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #156

Tepix wrote: post #29

Wow, just wow. Am i alone in thinking this is not going to fly if all he did was write some software that helps with your financial anonymity? There must be more. Perhaps he also deployed it? That would be a different story. The article is quite murky in that regard. Perhaps they don't know yet. In there is an interesting paragraph explaining what Tornado Cash is: … The ( criminal ) origin of the cryptocurrencies is…

> Am i alone in thinking this is not going to fly if all he did was write some software that helps with your financial anonymity? Probably. That said, he is arrested under Dutch law. We have no evidence this is tied to U.S. sanctions. As others mention, Dutch law restricts cash transactions in ways U.S. law does not. Also, in June—when the link says they began the investigation—it was publicly known Tornado was being…

Ballistic table calculators can be used by insurgents/guerilla fighters and even by regimes you or me personally oppose to.

Do we need to hold ballistic table calculators' developers accountable?

What if these calculators' developers submitted a PR to SQLite source code or just a feature request and SQLIte devs got it done, are SQLite developers also culpable by proxy?

Where do you stop your "they knew what they were doing"?

Re: Arrest of suspected developer of Tornado Cash

#760

Post by phphphphp » Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #213

phphphphp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law isn’t a binary based on responsibility, it’s reductive to suggest that by arguing for responsibility we are also arguing for prison for software developers. I can be responsible for your death and spend no time in prison. Every other industry deals with this challenge — why should software be any different?

You can take the word "jailed" out of my comment, replace it with "responsible for", and I still think my point stands... You said: > If a company releases software that is used nefariously, there are very common legal actions to hold them accountable If you believe that, it follows that you believe that every developer of encryption algorithms should be "held accountable" (be it jail, or "responsible without prison"…

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, they would absolutely be held liable for the outcomes.

If you knowingly build software that can be used for money laundering and make no effort to prevent money laundering then, if software was treated like other industries, you’d absolutely expect to be held liable.