Hacker News Reader

Comment by MisterBastahrd | Hacker News Reader

Am I supposed to feel terrible for people who got caught up in a money laundering scheme because they worked on the technology but maybe didn't actually launder any money? Because that's not going to happen. Anyone with a brain knew what Tornado Cashs' primary use case was, and they also had to know that governments are not fond of money laundering schemes. Leopards eat faces all the time.

View on HN

From the analysis being shared around, ~10% of transactions via TC were from hacks, the rest the vast majority are individuals protecting their privacy. as in their human right to do. its a block of code that uses cryptography to hide information. like tor or https. there are many many valid reasons to do this.

i know hackernews doesn't like crypto, but come on maybe question why we are fine with this government overreach? maybe question is this a trend we want to support as "hackers"? could we consider the fact that all governments in the world have a history of abusing surveillance to harm their citizens? you know not long ago i could be locked up for being gay, maybe standing up for cryptography is a good thing to do?

but oh no bitcoin is icky good job government protec me from the bad ideas.

Thank you for your comment to restore my sanity. It's absolutely mind blowing how seemingly progressive people cheer when authority is rapidly expanded at the cost of privacy and personal freedom.

Progressivism is all about authority, if you hadn't noticed in the last 3 years

I agree it's weird to remember the past when the opposite was true

Is there an impartial source on this "analysis"? That would exclude cryptobros on Twitter.

> the vast majority are individuals protecting their privacy.

i get your point but i don't know if it's true. on various occasions, i've wanted to (1) anonymize my funds before sending them to a discreet cause and (2) generate return on the funds i hold long term. for (1) i specifically avoid TC because going through a tumbler points a huge target of "this is suspicious activity", thereby drawing more attention to me specifically (attention isn't good for privacy). for (2) TC became an appealing place to park ETH particularly after ETH-denominated yields plummeted during this last DeFi crash (TC pays fees to the mixing pool). do we know how much of that "90% of non-hacked funds" involved in TC were provided by privacy advocates v.s. good ol' capitalists seeking returns from laundering?

Am I supposed to feel terrible for people who got caught up in a terrorism scheme because they worked on encryption technology but maybe didn't actually blow up any buildings? Because that's not going to happen. Anyone with a brain knew that encryption is primarily used to plan terrorist attacks, and they also had to know that governments are not fond of terrorist attacks. Leopards eat faces all the time.

You know, the very website you are viewing uses encryption.

He's trying to be sarcastic but failing at it. The primary focus of creating encryption was to keep messages secret from military enemies. It was later used for non-military purposes. The primary focus of the creation of Tornado Cash was to facilitate money laundering. Privacy was the public justification for its existence, but not why it exists.

> The primary focus of the creation of Tornado Cash was to facilitate money laundering

This is a GIGANTIC claim that you're going to have to evidence. Alexey Pertsev, Roman Semenov, and Roman Storm all studied STEM subjects at university, spent years working as pentesters, QAs, SWEs etc, as some sort of long-con to create a money laundering platform? What a totally absurd thing to say, and is quite frankly insulting to the entirety of this site.

Not as much of a dunk as you think. For some reason we take it for granted that all electronic financial activity must be logged and monitored. Things could have easily gone the same for all electronic communication, and the people arguing against encryption used the same exact arguments as the people arguing against financial privacy in this thread. That is what my sarcastic comment, and your comment illustrate.

From what I understand, the us govt. cannot just prosecute people for using tornado cash, because privacy in and of itself is not a crime. It means however, that exchanges will probably scrutinize it much more. It compromises the fungibility of Ethereum tied to tornado cash.

--edited for spelling --

> exchanges will probably securitize it much more

Scrutinise?

Primary use case is privacy. Just like "right to be forgotten" in Europe, as part of GDPR, which is a law on the books. Blockchains cannot forget, and everything is traced, so the only way to be forgotten on chain is via a mixer of some sort.

So perhaps don't do business on chain if you are looking to be anonymous.

That's my right as a sovereign, free man, to decide how I do my business. And it's not for you or anyone else to decide what math or algorithms I use to achieve that.

Also stay off the internet if you don't live in the EU and wish to stay anonymous.

That is a good point at present most blockchains are almost certainly illegal in the EU. Wonder which country is going to jump on that first.

GDPR doesn’t apply to financial data either. You can’t ask a bank to forget you and they are obligated to keep your records.

Just chiming in to say that GDPR doesn’t apply to financial data. Financial companies are obligated to keep you data for a long period of time and is a case where GDPR requests do not apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com