That's not trolling, that's trying to get other people to fight the US justice department for you. This "troll" probably has a lot riding on Tornado Cash. It's not the kind of stunt pulled by someone without interest.
> The gag effectively points out the absurdity of such sanctions for users receiving funds from blacklisted addresses that they have no power to decline.
is it a bug or a feature?
[1] https://consensys.github.io/smart-contract-best-practices/at...
That's not how regulation works. No man made law can make something actually impossible. It's there to define what you're allowed to do or not, and serves as a basis for the legal consequences. Enforcement can make things impossible. Some problems are solved with regulation but this is a technology (enforcement) problem.
Murder is unambiguously illegal and yet regulation can't make it impossible. You have no power to decline being shot.
That you've been bamboozled by ETH it's between you and ETH. I can imagine future crypto regulation will include requirements that users can decline receiving transactions
they're sending 0.1 Ether, which simply means they deposited 0.1 Ether which is currently $170 each
also, when Tornado Cash's anonymity isn't the priority, you don't need to delay between a deposit and a withdrawal, so this person wouldn't have needed to have interest within Tornado Cash, they could have acquired Ether, deposited Ether into Tornado Cash and sent it out, all within 60 seconds of each other, especially with a bot
Tornado Cash has reportedly $400 million in it, 213,000 Ether. Someone with "a lot" of interest would have much more than 0.1 Ether deposits to troll with (because each denomination has a different pool, so someone using the 10 and 100 ether pool simply wouldn't bother with the 0.1 ether pool). Anyone can do this and there are alot of people willing to force the logical extremes of sanctioning a pool.