Conversation

This I agree with. That writing it was likely part of conspiracy to launder money and that publication of the already existing code is free speech are not contradictory positions.

Quote Tweet

Katharina Koerner

@KatharinaKoern1

Aug 23

Am interesting analysis arguing GitHub has a First Amendment right to host independent copies of source code repository, and contributions to this fork, or any other, are also protected speech: eff.org/deeplinks/2022

Replying to

What if

published a fork of it on Ethereum with a new multisig update system set up?

Replying to

and

If just as an act of protest without actually using it, probably legal and ethical. If for personal or affiliates' use to conduct transactions? Maybe not. And it would possibly take a court to determine which.

Replying to

and

None of the governments is claiming that using it is illegal. It's illegal for a criminal to use it to hide the proceeds of their crimes, and they're saying that making it available to criminals is itself illegal. I haven't seen any claim that using it for privacy is.

Replying to

and

They're saying that the illegal act is publishing it in a way that criminals can use it. The governments may not consider publishing it on GitHub to be enough to cross that line since there's more work required to publish it in a usable form on Ethereum where it can be run.

2:16 AM · Aug 24, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

If something is an extralegal unregulated bank that's violating KYC requirements a bank would have to follow facilitating large anonymous transfers of wealth, I don't really care if governments lack the technical expertise to describe what's illegal about it accurately...

Replying to

and

...as much as I care that they actually take action to shut it down. I do believe we should continue to fight for the distinctions where they matter, but not to defend the people trying to make it easier to secretly transfer huge amounts of money.

Show replies