The purpose of the code is sending money without publicly publishing all the details about it. You can share view keys with an entity that you're required to share the details of the transactions. Gives them proof of the origin and destination of the money which went through it.
Conversation
Also, who has ever been convicted of a crime for publishing an exploit / payload for research where they didn't cooperate with criminals or take any money from them? The person who got arrested after going to a US conference turned out to had done both of those things after all.
1
Replying to
There's a difference between publishing an exploit/PoC and publishing something intended to run autonomously to do damage once it's out in the wild.
2
Replying to
It was published to provide a way to send money privately. Sending money privately with no intent to commit crimes or evade sanctions isn't a crime. Publishing the code clearly isn't either.
Only thing that now makes it a crime going forward is they sanctioned the code itself.
2
2
Replying to
Signal facilitates something all reasonable people agree is a fundamental right: private interpersonal communication. Wielding money secretly is NOT something we all agree is a fundamental right.
2
Replying to
That's not particularly relevant. It's the law that's relevant and sending money privately isn't illegal. No legislature has deemed it illegal in the US. No judge has decided that there was something wrong with Tornado Cash. OFAC sanctioned the code. Not clear they can do that.
1
1
They can sanction whoever they want. There isn't a procedure involving oversight. Sanctioning open source code rather than a company or individual is a first.
A better example than Signal would be SecureDrop which exists to facilitate leaks largely considered illegal by the US.
2
Replying to
The way this stuff works is not by any principles or precedents. There are not slippery slopes. Governments will fight things they deem threats. We fight back when the specific thing is justifiably worth fighting for, not when its coinbro cryptofash upset they can't launder money
1
1
Replying to
Around 1/4 of donations to GrapheneOS over the past couple years have been via Monero. We currently primarily send money to developers internationally via Bitcoin. An advantage of Monero, Zcash, Tornado Cash, etc. for that would be making it a lot harder for people to get doxxed.
3
5
Replying to
I appreciate that you and other projects are able to receive donations through cryptocurrency while it exists and don't fault you for that. At the same time I can believe that it all should be shut down this way, and should have been long ago before it took hold.
1
1
Replying to
Tornado Cash still works fine despite them sanctioning it. It can still be used by criminals to hide their activities among other criminals. It can still be used by law abiding people in countries not subject to US law, although a lot of countries do enforce these US laws.
Replying to
It would work but wouldn't do anything useful if there were no practical way to convert the toy money into real money.
1
Replying to
You don't need a centralized exchange to convert Ethereum to USD and not all centralized exchanges care about US laws / sanctions. There are decentralized exchanges including for exchanging cash for Bitcoin.
1
Show replies
People who don't want to break the law and had money in it can't withdraw their money without risking violating the law now. It won't be as appealing to people breaking laws without tons of non-criminal users but they can use Monero, etc. unless they do the same for all those.
1
Replying to
Great way to keep public confidence in these things crumbling. The threat that you won't be able to get money out is a great deterrent to use and aids in driving artificial value down towards zero.