News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Republishing a fork of the sanctioned Tornado Cash repositories. Parent comment

Re:Republishing a fork of the sanctioned Tornado Cash reposi... by JumpCrisscross on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:31PM (#32559515)
> solution would require the blockchain equivalent of end-to-end encryption, one where intermediaries have zero knowledge but doesn't require co-mingling of dirty and clean money

How would you draft a statutory safe harbor for GitHubs and Coinbases when it comes to handling mixers as well as the wallets connected to them?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Republishing a fork of the sanctioned Tornado Cash reposi... by paddlepop on Monday August 22, 2022 @09:57PM (#32559672)
As someone else has stated elsewhere in this discussion, I don't think GitHub have much to worry about. Tornado Cash the service was sanctioned, and MS would choose to censor the repo out of an abundance of caution. In the same way that the pair that open-sourced the ransomware PoC didn't get arrested because they are further away from the offenses.

I have mixed thoughts on safe harbor for centralised exchanges, they are the closest thing we have to banks in cryptoland. Mostly because with grey areas like that, a prosecution is only going to be pursued with clear evidence they knew but did nothing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Republishing a fork of the sanctioned Tornado Cash reposi... by pjc50 on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @03:19AM (#32561527)
> statutory safe harbor for GitHubs and Coinbases when it comes to handling mixers

KYC-plus: provided that they can prove somehow that their mixer is not handling money for sanctioned entities, they can be left alone.

[ Parent | on HN ]