miracle2k

And yet, Tornado Cash is still running.

> If you’re a company, you’re obliged to follow the law. > So, if you have an image generating technology that can generate content that violates the law, you’re obliged to prevent that.

That's not how law works.

> Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong.

Experts in what exactly?

There are two ways to defend a law that penalizes virtual child pornography:

- On evidence that there is harm.

- On general moral terms, aka "we just don't like that this is happening".

Worth noting that a ban on generated CSAM images was struck down as unconstitutional in Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...

> If generative art becomes a notorious market for CSAM, everyone in the field goes to jail.

No one will go to jail, except maybe some people who get caught creating, distributing or collecting those images.

GP is correct that OPs post makes no sense. Most validators around the world seem to be under no under legal obligation to exclude TC transactions from the blocks that they mine, and in particular to follow TC sanctions - their local laws don't require it, US law likely doesn't require it, and morally they are free to ignore US laws.

Whether those in the US are/will be is clearly uncertain. If OFAC or the DoJ wanted to, they could state their opinion on the matter, and a court could decide if they are right. That this very normal process of a rule-of-law based society is not working in the US (the government embracing vagueness coupled with insane punishments) is an issue.

> Also, it's not the GDPR that's to blame for the popups, it's the non-enforcement of it.

A distinction without a difference. This is the result of the law. If you think this can be improved by better enforcement, maybe the EU should give this a try. But this comes in a package. You can't pass a law and then say, "sure we ruined the internet, but its just because the law is scary enough that companies add terrible popups, but not scary enough to make them actually compliant.

Also, to be clear, I personally don't care about dark patterns in those consent popups. I click whatever is the biggest button (like lots of people), the one that hopefully gets me the quickest to the content I want to see. The popup itself is the annoying thing. Because it appears on every. single. link you click.

> The reality is rather "can we get enough data so we can manipulate you better in order to make more money?", "can we create a knowledge graph powerful enough to kill all our competition and influence democracy in our favor?" and "can we follow you everywhere to prey on you once we know enough to find a way in your life?"

Sometimes people just want to know which buttons users click because, yes, (gasp) it helps their business (the one that is employing people).

> I mean, you just stated that tons of people are ready to accept obnoxious interruptions in the form of ads that benefit corporations,

There aren't any fewer ads. We now have the same amount of ads + 3 privacy popups on every page you visit. I don't want any popups. EU regulation / the GDPR is clearly to blame for the popup. Supporters have to take responsibility for the internet experience they have wrought. Complaining about "bad actors" is an excuse. This is our reality today. It's because of these rules. Own it up.

> Because the vast majority of people would not consent.

Many people would click No when asked "Can we track you?". Yet, fewer people would click No when asked "Can we show you ads that are closely related to your interests"? Likely even more people would agree with "Are you willing to share some data so we can improve our product?". And maybe most people would actually be ok with websites including Google Fonts [1].

Of course, when too many people agree with the proposition, then the question must be legally mandated to be more scary.

The truth is that "people" are fundamentally not on the side of the privacy advocates. This is the whole reason for the GDPR. People are perfectly happy to share their data in exchange for using those services. Fundamentally, GDPR advocates are claiming that people just don't get it, and should not be allowed to make this choice. Which is why websites are not allowed to make their service conditioned on consent to tracking.

> So if I have DNT=1 set in my browser, pop a quick non modal notification saying "we wants to track you but but we won't because you said not to. Click here if you want to change that". Solved.

This is still an annoying banner somewhere. Please no.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/31/website_fine_google_f...

> They claimed to believe that it was blocked because of US sanctions and denied that the government blocked any websites.

This narrative is probably helped by the fact that half the internet is being blocked on the US side because of sanctions - i.e. the entirety of Google Cloud.

He was a journalist, but he was also working for the Washington Post in particular, and he was an US resident, and the details of this murder where particularly gruesome. No need for the jab about the media here.

> No, the money is sanctioned, he has to block it from being used anywhere and he must report it within 10 days according to the law

This is not correct.

> U.S. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency [...] from Tornado Cash

Because he did not receive those funds from Tornado Cash. He received them from a third party. This third party has interacted with a sanctioned entity (Tornado Cash), but sanctions are not transitive.

You can test this easily w/o cryptocurrency: You may not be allowed to transact with Iran, but you can buy stuff from a Germany company which has business with Iran - until OFAC may want to decide to sanction the Germany company.

The "dusting attacks" the OFAC FAQ refers to are transactions that someone sends directly from the TC smart contract to your wallet.

I'm grateful to everyone working on the JMAP ecosystem. Thank you, these look great.

Yes, it is this one: https://opensea.io/collection/thetransition

You seem uninterested in the details of how legislation is crafted to balance competing interests and values, and in that way both empower but also restrict regularity bodies. Congress did not say to Treasury "you can no 'limit financial transactions by people', good luck". If OFAC were to announce that they want to limit the number of bank transactions a person can do to 5 per day (say they are unable to investigate the larger volume), they would be exceeding their authority.

Another example, the tool that OFAC has here that we are talking about is their designation power, and the restrictions that follow such a designation are partly set in the statute defined by Congress, not something that OFAC has the power to make up.

> Then yes, OFAC would be able to prohibit this way of transferring money to Iran as well as any other way of doing it. Why not?

Transactions with the target entities ("Iran") are already restricted, whether through a crypto transfer or a tree-branch exchange. This is because OFAC has used its proper powers to designate those targets. The question at hand in this hypothetical is whether OFAC has the power /to designate the tree/ itself additionally, thus making it illegal for you to hang a sack of money there, regardless if you are transacting with Iran or just waiting for your cousin to pick it up.

Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"?

> prosecute whoever shot it.

Because the law against murder was broken.

> and the police can confiscate the gun and the bullets

Says who? They can only do this the law provides this mechanism. If there isn't, the gun remains the property of the owner (even if the owner is now a convicted murderer).

> but even then the government could claim to regulate an access to it - just as it could, for example, restrict access to an erupting volcano if it wanted

They could, if Congress has passed a law giving the government this regulatory power.

I get that people might feel "autonomous" is a cop-out, but legally, the argument is narrow. It isn't about people getting a way with crime. The crypto currency community would certainly be opposed to Tornado Cash relayers facing money laundering charges as well, but here they are merely saying that the sanctions authority does not extend to the sanctioning of things. And well, it either does or it doesn't. If Iran secretly plants a cherry tree in Central Park, is OFAC allowed to sanction the cherry tree, and prevent people from eating the cherries? They are arguing no, because OFAC has no authority to sanction trees.

From the post:

"So there is potentially an entity called Tornado Cash that is controlled by certain individuals, and the web address and some of the Ethereum addresses in the notice can be thought of as either pseudonyms for that entity or, alternatively, as its property. At this point, we’re not offering an opinion on whether it was appropriate to sanction that entity—we do not know all the facts that have led to this action—but we would agree that there may be an entity behind those donation addresses and that said entity may be legally eligible for listing. "

We all want results, but implementation details matter, particularly in law. The suit is merely saying that if law makers want to give OFAC the authority to sanction the Tornado Cash smart contracts, they have yet to do so.

> you can't absolve yourself by building a robot that does the crime for you.

But the argument isn't at all about absolving the robot builder. In fact, they explicitly take no view on whether the sanctions against the Tornado Cash entity are justified. They also do not take a view on whether the government would be justified in prosecuting the individuals behind Tornado Cash.

They are saying the government does not have the statutory authority to sanction the robot you built.

Github deleted these repos because they represented a business relationship on their part with the sanctioned Tornado Cash entity, not because they considered the code itself illegal. Other copies of the code have not been deleted by Github.

The argument is that the sanctions authority granted by Congress to Treasury is limited to persons and entities, and the Tornado Cash smart contracts are neither, nor the property of either.

"ability to pay in cash for our every day stuff" is curiously weak. "The war on cash" has resulted in a great number of restrictions over the years, precisely because it is such an effective way to avoid taxes. What does your support for "privacy" mean here? Which rules do you support rolling back? Which of the coming further restrictions will you oppose?

Ipv6 is software too.

There is no rollback feature. There is social consensus, which is sort of the whole point. No one can tell you and your friends which fork of the chain to use. Good luck to you. We might call this freedom.

Of course. It's an outrageous suit driven by anti-porn activists.

It's especially ironic that so many people oppose crypto-currencies with the argument that "democratic control" is desirable when deciding the rules of our financial system, yet the consequence of this is obvious: the law must force monopolistic financial services providers to serve any entity that is operating legally. If PornHub did something wrong, we have laws and prosecutors for that.

It'a civil suit, and MindGeek is a defendant. You should probably read the article.

Looking forward to your rigorous defense of Z-Cash/Monero/a future fully private Ethereum then.

> Let's be honest with ourselves. Mixers are used primarily for crypto transaction laundering.

About as true a statement as Tor being primarily used for CSAM, and no-one actually caring about e2e encryption who isn't trying to hide from the law.

Some things this non-profit will need to do, no matter how good their intentions:

- Block your account if the US imposes sanctions on your country. - Delete the NFT you bought if there is a copyright dispute, maybe until such time that the dispute is resolved. - Delete NFTs that offend the sensibilities, or not allow them in the first place. - Take away your NFT if there is a dispute between you and the previous owner (if private transfers are even allowed).

Any of these things can happen today, or in 10 years. In other words, your ownership of your NFT is at the pleasure of something else. And remember, NFTs are totally useless - ownership is the only thing they do; they better do it right.

> 9 months ago people were saying NFTs are “here to stay”, how did that work out?.

They are still here and doing fine? I'm afraid dubious media reporting and wishful thinking has given you the wrong idea of what is going on.

"git is a blockchain" is a meme that is exclusively pushed by anti-crypto activists because it provides the basis for their "no there there" talking point (note the popularity of this phrase in particular).

Evidence: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1499637399751692288

The entire article is arguing a strawman.