Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/design-everydays
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
tornado cash is back. i know you're excited to launder money again. but think bigger... it makes it possible to make everyday payments onchain without surveillance. and without zk or bridging to some new privacy network. https://zora.co/collect/zora:0x5abf0c04ab7196e2bdd19313b479baebd9f7791b/372
5 replies
17 recasts
37 reactions
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
vast majority of TC usage was completely legal and legitimate also worth noting that TC uses zk proofs despite not requiring you to bridge to another network like aztec
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Leo
@leohenkels
Vast majority is not good enough when ruined by the small minority. It’s why regulation exists. Think airline manufacturers, self-driving cars, drugs, etc…
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
TC had compliance tools in place and engaged in good faith with regulators/law enforcement, yet police raided Roman’s home and arrested him in front of his young child. sound reasonable to you? there is no excuse to hold the developers liable for the malicious actions of third parties
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leo
@leohenkels
I largely agree with you and TC in general. I just was referencing the point about “vast majority.” As an extreme example, if I build an awesome marketplace like Craigslist, then it is my responsibility as a developer to make sure organs aren’t being sold over the platform.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
yes, but the problem is that what you’re describing is an analogy that isn’t applicable to smart contracts. no way to prevent anyone from interacting with TC contracts once deployed. we have better tools being developed now like privacy pools (see the paper by Vitalik et. al) that allow you to prove you’re not associated with a particular set of addresses (like bad actors). but we still need to make sure that Roman and Alexey aren’t held liable for alleged misuse by third parties that they could not have prevented.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Leo
@leohenkels
I do agree with your last point. I support freeing Roman - and I also think that when building something in the first place it’s essential to think how it could be misused. Again not very utilitarian of me, but small harm to a few outweighs positive to most, imo. I think some of the remorse Ross shows is applicable.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
totally understand your perspective, thank you for sharing.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
