> I genuinely don’t see any link between a bomb going off and a privacy protocol used to move financial assets.
The link is explained in the post: in both instances, a human is the prime mover. No court in the world draws a distinction between "Joe kills Bob" and "Joe builds a Bob-killing robot that kills Bob." Similarly, no court in the world is likely to draw a distinction between "North Korea launders money" and "North Korea uses an autonomous program to launder money." It simply isn't relevant.
> Similarly, merely using a technique to obfuscate the origin of my own money is not enough to claim I am a criminal. I can do similar with gold coins and paper cash, and in high dollar amounts.
To be clear: if attempt to obfuscate your cash transactions by structuring them beneath the limits that trigger CTR reporting, you're committing a crime. You can have reasonable opinions about whether that ought to be a crime, but it is absolutely not legal in the current regulatory scheme to intentionally avoid your reporting requirements.
> Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd.
We have a precise, material example of Tornado enabling a specific crime. That crime is the reason it's on the OFAC list, and it's stated in clear, precise language on the Treasury's site. Again: you can claim that Tornado is an instrument, and anything can be used to commit crime, but it is a matter of fact that Tornado was both used to commit crimes and made committing those crimes easier than they otherwise would have been (by sidestepping financial regulatory frameworks).
I philosophically disagree that something known to be used for a crime, or known to make crimes easier, ipso facto means that thing should be banned. I see a lot of benefits to society with privacy solutions like Tornado Cash. I also like paper cash, gold coins, and guns for that matter, all of which have been documented to be used in crimes and all of which are legal.
I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.
We are not in meaningful disagreement about these things: the question is not whether the government is justified in banning anything that can be used to do crime (which is everything), but whether the government is justified in banning something that have an efficient cause in crime. That's what Tornado Cash is, and no amount of hemming and hawing around other potential uses meaningfully changes this.
Correct - we are debating the merits and demerits of Tornado Cash for society. My position is it’s helpful and all negatives already have laws that solve them.
Furthermore once the software is no longer gray, it could be embedded via API in many other entities to enable privacy, just as encryption was once taboo and now is everywhere. It’s only the gray nature of this privacy solution that prevents its normalization.
The discussion you are participating in does not make any philosophical claims, but just states how the law works. A libertarian disagreeing with this on a philosophical is not just obvious, it's also uninteresting.
I linked to several legal arguments as to why the person I’m speaking to is wrong. They are not a lawyer as their blog states. And my philosophical arguments go to the heart of the law, which is how much authority Treasury claims they have vs. what their actual authority is as written.
I don’t even know what your comment adds to the discussion, it is very boring and also uninteresting and perhaps you should exit this thread before you degrade it further.
Bitcoin from silk road was seized as proceeds of crime. Those btc were actually used in crime. Government later cleaned those coins and auctioned them off.
In this curious land of the free, government can take criminal proceeds and clean and resell it while also claiming the freedom-taxpayers may not express themselves with others in computer code.
I expect Tornado Cash will be found to have the same protections as PGP in the 90s.
The link is explained in the post: in both instances, a human is the prime mover. No court in the world draws a distinction between "Joe kills Bob" and "Joe builds a Bob-killing robot that kills Bob." Similarly, no court in the world is likely to draw a distinction between "North Korea launders money" and "North Korea uses an autonomous program to launder money." It simply isn't relevant.
> Similarly, merely using a technique to obfuscate the origin of my own money is not enough to claim I am a criminal. I can do similar with gold coins and paper cash, and in high dollar amounts.
To be clear: if attempt to obfuscate your cash transactions by structuring them beneath the limits that trigger CTR reporting, you're committing a crime. You can have reasonable opinions about whether that ought to be a crime, but it is absolutely not legal in the current regulatory scheme to intentionally avoid your reporting requirements.
> Acting like Tornado itself is enabling crime is absurd.
We have a precise, material example of Tornado enabling a specific crime. That crime is the reason it's on the OFAC list, and it's stated in clear, precise language on the Treasury's site. Again: you can claim that Tornado is an instrument, and anything can be used to commit crime, but it is a matter of fact that Tornado was both used to commit crimes and made committing those crimes easier than they otherwise would have been (by sidestepping financial regulatory frameworks).