Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Right now OFAC has essentially sanctioned the various Ethereum addresses constituting Tornado Cash, some of which may be entities/people, some of which may be smart contracts. They're both just hexadecimals.
So it stands to reason that, if one of the sanctioned addresses sends me some ETH, I'd be culpable as well, even without giving consent to receive funds, or even knowing who sent them. Unless OFAC has explicitly mentioned otherwise, and I'm just not aware of it.Right now OFAC has essentially sanctioned the various Ethereum addresses constituting Tornado Cash, some of which may be entities/people, some of which may be smart contracts. They're both just hexadecimals.
Someone literally did this!That could be an interesting guerilla tactic for on-chain sanctioned actors: just spread the plague by sending funds to influential addresses. Assuming this possibility isn't precluded by certain clauses or conditionals stated somewhere, it is arguably a testament to the hamfistedness of this approach.
so the direct rails are to ethereum? ethereum is therefore a kind of obfuscatory asset into which I can "launder" my illegal gains. but this just moves the regulatory focus to ethereum directly. or wherever. the point is that eventually you need to move your money out of crypto and into the mainstream fin sector, at which point it becomes easy (relatively at least) to track and shut down. no crypto is an island.I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it inherits its permissionless/decentralized security model from the underlying network, IE Ethereum. If thats the case, OFAC would need to work with other executive agencies to compromise Ethereum itself, which is global.
But then again, maybe there are certain admin controls over the smart contracts deployed that regulators could seize, but even then, because all smart contracts are open source, someone else could just redeploy Tornado (IE they could "fork" tornado).
Yeah and thats one of the arguments for how crypto assets can be regulated: at the fiat onramps and offramps.so the direct rails are to ethereum? ethereum is therefore a kind of obfuscatory asset into which I can "launder" my illegal gains. but this just moves the regulatory focus to ethereum directly. or wherever. the point is that eventually you need to move your money out of crypto and into the mainstream fin sector, at which point it becomes easy (relatively at least) to track and shut down. no crypto is an island.
Yeah just currency issued by governments or central powers of some sort, IE issued by fiat. As opposed to privately issued currencies, crypto or otherwise.fiat?
What could be strangled, or rather put to rest, is this somewhat facile notion that the crypto economy could exist independently of the larger geoeconomic context.crypto could in fact be completely strangled by this strategy
Have you heard of the term metacrisis? It describes a sort of holistic risk profile we face as a species, and the theory involves two societal attractors: catastrophe and dystopia.so the direct rails are to ethereum? ethereum is therefore a kind of obfuscatory asset into which I can "launder" my illegal gains. but this just moves the regulatory focus to ethereum directly. or wherever. the point is that eventually you need to move your money out of crypto and into the mainstream fin sector, at which point it becomes easy (relatively at least) to track and shut down. no crypto is an island.
but isnt this notion one of the prime motivating factors behind the creation of crypto - the idea that we can build a financial system which is completely independent of the one that exists currently?What could be strangled, or rather put to rest, is this somewhat facile notion that the crypto economy could exist independently of the larger geoeconomic context.
That may have been part of Satoshi's vision (still haven't read his whitepaper haha), but to me it is pretty untenable. But to be clear, I think that is just one take on what this tech can amount to, and my understanding is that his whitepaper didn't account for smart contracts and non-fungible tokens, both of which are major primitives in this whole conversation.but isnt this notion one of the prime motivating factors behind the creation of crypto - the idea that we can build a financial system which is completely independent of the one that exists currently?
I think a more realistic motivation is to build a system that is more difficult to censor than the existing one - a condition which almost necessarily leads us to situations like this tornado cash one.but isnt this notion one of the prime motivating factors behind the creation of crypto - the idea that we can build a financial system which is completely independent of the one that exists currently?
That said, I highly doubt they have statutory authority to do something like this - but I don't know.I don't see OFAC's authority extending much beyond this sanction, unless they consider it financially worthwhile to acquire a portion of the Ethereum validator network, and start steering the network itself.
Yeah and in this case it's interesting because Tornado Cash may be difficult (or virtually impossible) to shut down, seeing as its just smart contracts on a permissionless distributed virtual machine.
Yeah I heard about that too, and honestly I don't know if there is a web3 version of github. In principle it could be done on something like IPFS or maybe Ceramic. I'd imagine there are efforts in this direction, but I just don't know of them.yesterday Github, owned by Micro$oft, banned all the accounts of anyone who contributed to the Tornado repository, as well as removing that code repository - if the code can't be maintained then surely over time it will become deprecated and essentially useless?
To be honest I'm very surprised that the developers were using a centralised version control system owned by a massive corporation...incredibly bad opSec