If you think tornado cash is an AR 15, you also have no idea how it works. So like, where in tornado cash has physical bullets, a barrel, a stock, a chamber, a trigger?

My example is specific. Obfuscating stolen funds. Using whatever means available to do it.

More often than not, I just see the same tired arguments over and over. People stretch logic when it suits them and ignore common sense when it doesn’t.

The result we have is millions of people have been BURNED by bitcoin thanks to funds obfuscation. The victims don’t care what technically happened to achieve funds obfuscation, they care they were defrauded. Don’t expect them to get “orange pilled” anytime soon when word on the street is you have a chance of ruining your life by touching it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Your analogy is shitty bc tc is a tool, not a company. The software was released and isnt controlable. The same way how and ar 15 or a hammer isnt meant to be used to murder people, it can be used to do that thing, and its not up to the manufacturer to control what a user does with it.

Also, code is speech.

If someone writes code to hack a nuclear power plant and causes it to meltdown, is that speech too?

Hacking a nuclear power plant is a violation of private property rights and a crime itself.

Code allowing people to transact privately, isn't inherently a crime.

I’m talking about the person who wrote the code to meltdown the reactor. Not the person who executed the code. Is that speech yes or no.

In order to write that code you would have to commit other crimes, like theft, fraud, trespassing, etc.

Not at all. You’re not answering the question because you know your argument doesn’t hold water.

Then explain how ypu would write code to do such a thing without violating the law. The code itself would be speech, but would put you in jail because it would be the confession of a crime(s).

The control system code for the cooling system is posted online.

Clearly this is a straw man from your answer, but yes, then that code is free speech, bc its a QA test case.