To use an analogy, see the open Matrix protocol, a tool for privacy that can facilitate encrypted communication between criminals.
For example, if it can be shown in court that he contributed to it with a knowing intent to facilitate privacy of illegal deals, that might be considered aiding and abetting "the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of, property, knowing that such property is derived from criminal activity", which is a crime under EU/Dutch AML law.
But as usual things are only legal until it’s tried.
A machine that prints counterfeit bills might be illegal to make or sell even without ever being used in some jurisdictions while not in others. And whether the machine has other, legal purposes, may or may not matter.
The “dual use” thing is a common argument for most technical things when there is talk of bans and regulation. I think it’s mostly a hollow argument in cases where the primary actual users are criminal users. That some technology can be used for illegal purposes should not be enough to ban it, but nor should whether there exists a legal use for a technology be enough argument that it shouldn’t be outlawed.
But this is a tool whose specific purpose it is to make it difficult to track illegal transactions. Of course this is happening.
Programmers get way too wrapped up in "but I called it open source! I called it privacy software!"
What you label it has no actual power here. It was used in illegal behavior and that appears to be its goal.
Of course it's going away.
Compare with E2EE Matrix protocol: it does not exist to facilitate criminal communication, but it does facilitate criminal communication.
TC is also different because it is an open source protocol, not a legal entity or group. You deposit funds into the protocol, and anybody in the network can help you withdraw them by relaying your transaction. It is a set of rules that any group of people can follow to allow for private transactions, and the same protocol can run on many blockchains.
What's the difference between that and a tool whose specific purpose is to make it difficult to track transactions in general?
I would react the same way to someone trying to get me to define the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle.
In the context of an AR-47, it's an irrelevant, time wasting question.
>In the context of an AR-47
LMAO, please tell me this is sarcasm. This is the actual fudd meme of someone mixing up AK-47 and AR.
Please.
Does that really make a difference? I’d not worry about writing anything and putting it online saying “this can be used for evil so don’t do that”. But if I was approached by a criminal who asked me to write code for their criminal activity and I did so knowingly, then I’d expect legal consequences, possibly even if my code was never deployed at all.
The difference must be in whether or not there was a conspiracy to commit crimes or if there wasn’t?
In this case I don’t know whether this was purely open and no such contact between user and developer existed. But in principle I’d expect writing (almost) anything in the open to be safe.