We love it.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50669-CV0.pdf
Was Andreas co-authoring this ?
you don´t need any text-book on Ether any more, do you ?
______________
"The use of mixers like the Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts
is,
well,
mixed.
For example, law-abiding cryptocurrency users employ
mixers to maintain anonymity concerning their net worth, spending habits, and donations to political causes. Mixers can also be used to thwart criminals that would use this information to identify potential victims or set up phishing schemes.
For example, plaintiff Joseph Van Loon sought to use Tornado Cash to run a blockchain service without falling prey to malicious cyberattacks.
Plaintiff Tyler Almeida used Tornado Cash to anonymously donate to the Ukrainian war effort because he was worried that Russian hacker groups would target him specifically if they were able to easily trace the donation back to him.
Plaintiff Kevin Vitale turned to Tornado Cash after learning that someone had linked his crypto activities to his physical address.
Plaintiff Alexander Fisher used Tornado Cash to develop code that improved Case: 23-50669 Document: 123-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 No. 23-50669 13 the uses of the Ethereum blockchain network.
And plaintiff Nate Welch used Tornado Cash to protect his privacy and to avoid harassment from malicious actors."
well, it´s very mixed up, right ?
"Nearly a quarter of funds sent to mixers in 2022 were tied to money laundering efforts."
"
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act
>>
The President (Obama)
>>
Department of the Treasury
>>
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
issues regulations
including definitional regulations for the words “person ”, “entity”, “property”, and “interest.”
OFAC .... identified Tornado Cash as an entity organized by and under its
DAO, and in doing so blocked “all real, personal, and other property and
interests in property” of the designated Tornado Cash entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
OFAC ... added Tornado Cash to the SDN list
OFAC - thus - blacklisted Tornado Cash for its role in laundering virtual currency for malicious cyber actors—for example, a North Korea-linked hacking group that used Tornado Cash to launder the proceeds of cybercrimes. By adding Tornado Cash to the list of Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons (SDN), OFAC imposed an across-the-board prohibition against any dealings with Tornado Cash “property,” which OFAC defined to include open-source computer code known as “smart contracts.
The district court
granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and denied that of the Tornado Cash users, concluding: (1) Tornado Cash is an “entity that may be properly designated as a person under IEEPA,” (2) that smart contracts constitute “property,” (3) and that the DAO, which runs Tornado Cash, has an “interest” in its smart contracts because it derives profits from its crypto mixing and relaying services that run on smart contracts.
Court of Appeals
we must affirm “if [] OFAC’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious, and were based on substantial evidence
Van Loon argues that the district court erred in giving “heightened deference” to OFAC’s definition of “property” and in finding that the immutable smart contracts met that definition.
We agree.
And because that element is dispositive, we need not address the other elements.
As usual, we start with the statutory text. Where a statute leaves
terms undefined, we accord those terms their “ordinary, contemporary,
common meaning. And the “ordinary” or “plain” meaning of “property” compels summary judgment in Van Loon’s favor.
First, take dictionary definitions ...
It also includes the right “to exclude everyone else from interfering with it."
The Supreme Court has defined property as “all objects or rights which are susceptible of ownership.” Indeed, when someone has a property interest, he or she typically has the “rights of possession and control.” And “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property” is “the right to exclude others.”
The immutable smart contracts at issue in this appeal are not property
because they are not capable of being owned.
... no one can “exclude” anyone from using the Tornado Cash pool smart contracts
Simply put, regardless of OFAC’s designation of Tornado Cash, the immutablesmart contracts continue operating. And furthermore, because the software continues to operate regardless of the sanctions, and the blockchain technology “allows peer-to-peer transfers . . . without requiring the recipient to consent to transfer,” some users may become liable whenever someone transfers them digital assets via Tornado Cash, even without their knowledge or consent.
..
And accordingly, the immutable smart contracts are outside the scope of
OFAC’s designation authority.
To evade this requirement of “ownership,” the Department conflates
a separate element of the statute, “interest,” with “property” to suggest that “Tornado Cash profits from—and therefore has an interest in—the smart contracts that embody the mixing service it provides” and are thus analogous to patents and copyrights, which are undisputedly within the scope of OFAC’s definition of property.60 But Tornado Cash smart contracts are different from patents and copyrights ....
As a last resort, the Department emphasizes the final catch-all for
“any other property.” But the catch-all is not as expansive as the Department suggests; it still requires that “any . . . property” actually be,
well,
property. Adding an “any” before a word doesn’t change that word’s meaning.
OFAC’s definition of property includes “contracts of any nature
whatsoever,” but contrary to the Department’s argument (and the misleading name of the software), the immutable smart contracts are not
contracts.
District Court ...the district court ignored basic principles of black-letter contract law: Unilateral or not, contracts require “[a]n agreement between two or more parties.” Immutable smart contracts have only one party in play.
The Department also contends that the immutable smart contracts
qualify as “services of any nature whatsoever.”72 But the immutable smart contracts “provide . . . services”; they are not services themselves
... according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “[i]n this sense, service denotes an
intangible commodity in the form of human effort, such as labor, skill, or
advice.”
No human effort is expended by the immutable smart contracts.
... which are nothing more than lines of code
even by the Department’s definition, ... are less like a “service” and more like a tool that is used in performing a service.
That is not the same as being a service.
More importantly, Tornado Cash, as defined by OFAC, does not own
the services provided by the immutable smart contracts.
A homeowner may own the right to trash-removal services and a client may own the right to legal services performed by a lawyer, but neither the homeowner nor the client owns the person performing the trash-removal services or the lawyer—for good reason
Our Constitution’s ingenious design demands that judges be
sticklers when it comes to decoding legislative text.
immutable smart contracts are not “property”
we need not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an “entity” or whether it has an “interest” in the immutable smart contracts.
We readily recognize the real-world downsides of certain
uncontrollable technology falling outside of OFAC’s sanctioning authority.
....
"
_________________
we liked best in this judgment:
that and how the word “well” was used twice
the word “stickers” in this context
well done,
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
!
ups
# sticklers
We love it.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50669-CV0.pdf
Was Andreas co-authoring this ?
you don´t need any text-book on Ether any more, do you ?
______________
"The use of mixers like the Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts
is,
well,
mixed.
For example, law-abiding cryptocurrency users employ
mixers to maintain anonymity concerning their net worth, spending habits, and donations to political causes. Mixers can also be used to thwart criminals that would use this information to identify potential victims or set up phishing schemes.
For example, plaintiff Joseph Van Loon sought to use Tornado Cash to run a blockchain service without falling prey to malicious cyberattacks.
Plaintiff Tyler Almeida used Tornado Cash to anonymously donate to the Ukrainian war effort because he was worried that Russian hacker groups would target him specifically if they were able to easily trace the donation back to him.
Plaintiff Kevin Vitale turned to Tornado Cash after learning that someone had linked his crypto activities to his physical address.
Plaintiff Alexander Fisher used Tornado Cash to develop code that improved Case: 23-50669 Document: 123-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 No. 23-50669 13 the uses of the Ethereum blockchain network.
And plaintiff Nate Welch used Tornado Cash to protect his privacy and to avoid harassment from malicious actors."
well, it´s very mixed up, right ?
"Nearly a quarter of funds sent to mixers in 2022 were tied to money laundering efforts."
"
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act
>>
The President (Obama)
>>
Department of the Treasury
>>
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
issues regulations
including definitional regulations for the words “person ”, “entity”, “property”, and “interest.”
OFAC .... identified Tornado Cash as an entity organized by and under its
DAO, and in doing so blocked “all real, personal, and other property and
interests in property” of the designated Tornado Cash entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
OFAC ... added Tornado Cash to the SDN list
OFAC - thus - blacklisted Tornado Cash for its role in laundering virtual currency for malicious cyber actors—for example, a North Korea-linked hacking group that used Tornado Cash to launder the proceeds of cybercrimes. By adding Tornado Cash to the list of Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons (SDN), OFAC imposed an across-the-board prohibition against any dealings with Tornado Cash “property,” which OFAC defined to include open-source computer code known as “smart contracts.
The district court
granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and denied that of the Tornado Cash users, concluding: (1) Tornado Cash is an “entity that may be properly designated as a person under IEEPA,” (2) that smart contracts constitute “property,” (3) and that the DAO, which runs Tornado Cash, has an “interest” in its smart contracts because it derives profits from its crypto mixing and relaying services that run on smart contracts.
Court of Appeals
we must affirm “if [] OFAC’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious, and were based on substantial evidence
Van Loon argues that the district court erred in giving “heightened deference” to OFAC’s definition of “property” and in finding that the immutable smart contracts met that definition.
We agree.
And because that element is dispositive, we need not address the other elements.
As usual, we start with the statutory text. Where a statute leaves
terms undefined, we accord those terms their “ordinary, contemporary,
common meaning. And the “ordinary” or “plain” meaning of “property” compels summary judgment in Van Loon’s favor.
First, take dictionary definitions ...
It also includes the right “to exclude everyone else from interfering with it."
The Supreme Court has defined property as “all objects or rights which are susceptible of ownership.” Indeed, when someone has a property interest, he or she typically has the “rights of possession and control.” And “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property” is “the right to exclude others.”
The immutable smart contracts at issue in this appeal are not property
because they are not capable of being owned.
... no one can “exclude” anyone from using the Tornado Cash pool smart contracts
Simply put, regardless of OFAC’s designation of Tornado Cash, the immutablesmart contracts continue operating. And furthermore, because the software continues to operate regardless of the sanctions, and the blockchain technology “allows peer-to-peer transfers . . . without requiring the recipient to consent to transfer,” some users may become liable whenever someone transfers them digital assets via Tornado Cash, even without their knowledge or consent.
..
And accordingly, the immutable smart contracts are outside the scope of
OFAC’s designation authority.
To evade this requirement of “ownership,” the Department conflates
a separate element of the statute, “interest,” with “property” to suggest that “Tornado Cash profits from—and therefore has an interest in—the smart contracts that embody the mixing service it provides” and are thus analogous to patents and copyrights, which are undisputedly within the scope of OFAC’s definition of property.60 But Tornado Cash smart contracts are different from patents and copyrights ....
As a last resort, the Department emphasizes the final catch-all for
“any other property.” But the catch-all is not as expansive as the Department suggests; it still requires that “any . . . property” actually be,
well,
property. Adding an “any” before a word doesn’t change that word’s meaning.
OFAC’s definition of property includes “contracts of any nature
whatsoever,” but contrary to the Department’s argument (and the misleading name of the software), the immutable smart contracts are not
contracts.
District Court ...the district court ignored basic principles of black-letter contract law: Unilateral or not, contracts require “[a]n agreement between two or more parties.” Immutable smart contracts have only one party in play.
The Department also contends that the immutable smart contracts
qualify as “services of any nature whatsoever.”72 But the immutable smart contracts “provide . . . services”; they are not services themselves
... according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “[i]n this sense, service denotes an
intangible commodity in the form of human effort, such as labor, skill, or
advice.”
No human effort is expended by the immutable smart contracts.
... which are nothing more than lines of code
even by the Department’s definition, ... are less like a “service” and more like a tool that is used in performing a service.
That is not the same as being a service.
More importantly, Tornado Cash, as defined by OFAC, does not own
the services provided by the immutable smart contracts.
A homeowner may own the right to trash-removal services and a client may own the right to legal services performed by a lawyer, but neither the homeowner nor the client owns the person performing the trash-removal services or the lawyer—for good reason
Our Constitution’s ingenious design demands that judges be
sticklers when it comes to decoding legislative text.
immutable smart contracts are not “property”
we need not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an “entity” or whether it has an “interest” in the immutable smart contracts.
We readily recognize the real-world downsides of certain
uncontrollable technology falling outside of OFAC’s sanctioning authority.
....
"
_________________
we liked best in this judgment:
that and how the word “well” was used twice
the word “stickers” in this context
well done,
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
!
Dieses Video hat gerade Marc Friedrich auf X eingestellt.
Das wäre das Ende der privaten Altersvorsorge.
Wir müssen uns keine Sorgen im Alltag machen da wir Bitcoin kennen, jedoch wissen die wenigsten Deutschen nicht was Bitcoin eigentlich ist.
Um so wichtiger ist es gerade in der heutigen Zeit, über Bitcoin aufzuklären.
Der Staat allein, wird niemanden ein menschenwürdiges Rentenalter ermöglichen. https://video.nostr.build/752e0298e0b2aa0101a23ee2c67c22606ac82c581c05cfad7768d82d6f427e3f.mp4
In Germany, the pension funds (Versorgungswerke der Rechtsanwälte) are the pension insurance for lawyers; they therefore do not pay their pension contributions into the state pension scheme (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung).
Globally, there are increasing reports that pension providers are investing in Bitcoin.
Not so the lawyers' pension funds.
We asked them about it. Why not? If the purpose of the pension funds is to secure the retirement of lawyers and the task of the management boards is to ensure this, why this reluctance?
The answer was: “That's just the way it is.”
It is also clear from the answer that there are no plans to change this. Otherwise we would probably have been told.
Once again, the reasons are different from those given, but there is not just one reason (legal situation).
Among others, It's the pension funds of the asset managers (with whom the pension funds - and incidentally doctors, architects ... also have such pension schemes) that are at stake.
There will be no change unless the enlightened (compulsorily) insured lawyer (yes, membership in either the statutory or the lawyers' pension scheme is compulsory) takes care of his own interests and changes the current situation.
By the way: I could also imagine a proof of investment here, i.e. complete transparency.
Every Euro that has been paid into the pension fund as a contribution by the members could be made traceable, including the current “whereabouts”.
Yes, there are annual reports.
Do I trust my pension fund that the board and all those involved are doing their work ONLY in the interests of the members?
Well, the answer is simple. Because you can also ask whether the state pension scheme member (e.g. the employee) trusts the state pension scheme.
not your keys, not your coins
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
NIS-2 Richtlinie
was ist das ?
worum geht es ?
Definition KRITIS -
Sektoren Kritischer Infrastrukturen
Energie
Informationstechnik und Telekommunikation
Transport und Verkehr
Gesundheit
Medien und Kultur
Wasser
Ernährung
Finanz- und Versicherungswesen
Siedlungsabfallentsorgung
Staat und Verwaltung
Alle Organisationen aus diesen Sektoren zählen unabhängig von ihrer Größe zu den Kritischen Infrastrukturen (KRITIS).
Die Sektoren Staat und Verwaltung sowie Medien und Kultur unterliegen jedoch nicht der Regulierung durch das BSIG.
note1kpkmuagzc6vsq0j2phwfpyedahrs5yr3ycrk6mww6kjfzgj6h68q835u2h
https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819
We need “a Luther” to make legal texts readable.
He also did nothing other than overthrow supposed authorities.
"Das Versorgungswerk ist die berufsständische Versorgungseinrichtung der Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälte in Berlin."
Wer findet den Fehler ?
Hinter den Kulissen ... der Insolvenzverfahren
Man stelle sich vor:
Ein Gläubiger beauftragt eine Anwaltskanzlei mit der Geltendmachung einer Forderung.
Der Anwalt wird tätig, erlangt einen gerichtlichen Vollstreckungstitel und es stellt sich danach heraus, dass der Schuldner / die Schuldnerin nicht zahlt / nicht zahlen will / nicht zahlen kann.
Der Anwalt wird mit der Zwangsvollstreckung beauftragt.
Er bekommt u.a. heraus, dass der Schuldner / die Schuldnerin Bankkonten hatte.
Er beantragt darauf hin - alles durch den Mandanten beauftragt - den Erlass eines Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschlusses gegen den Schuldner / die Bank, bei der der Schuldner / die Schuldnerin wohlmöglich ein Guthaben hatte, oder in der Zukunft haben könnte.
Man stelle sich vor: der Antrag wurde im Oktober 2004 gestellt.
...
...
Es gehen Jahrzehnte ins Land. (Mehrzahl)
Die so in Anspruch genommene Bank lässt nichts von sich hören.
Die Anwälte haben eine Aufbewahrungspflicht für die Akten der Mandanten von max. 6 Jahren, für einige Aktenbestandteile vielleicht sogar 10 Jahre...
In einigen Fällen trifft die Anwälte dann gar die Pflicht der Aktenvernichtung wg. Datenschutz.
Und dann - man stelle sich vor - nach Jahrzehnten (Mehrzahl) kommt erst ein Anruf der Bank (immerhin gibt es die noch) beim Anwalt (wahrscheinlich um zu prüfen, ob der noch lebt).
Und dann ein paar Tage später ein Schreiben.
Es wird um "Mitteilung der noch offenen Forderung bzw. des aktuellen Sachstands" gebeten.
!!!
Darüber hinaus, klar, die Bank möchte nun im Rahmen der Zwangsvollstreckung Beträge auskehren, bittet die Bank um Angabe eines Kontos, auf "das wir ggf. die gepfändeten Beträge überweisen können."
!!!
Wer hat so weit gelesen ?
Wo ist der Haken ?
Warum wundert mich das Vorgehen der Bank(en) nicht ?
Es können Wetten abgeschlossen werden, wie die Sache ausgeht.
been getting nothing but really great feedback about the nostr:npub1dwah6u025f2yy9dgwlsndntlfy85vf0t2eze5rdg2mxg99k4mucqxz7c52 we did in berlin last weekend; i think my favorite anecdote is about an engineer who loved getting to see more about both the cashu + fedimint projects. it really helped him figure out where he wanted to contribute and gave him good context for both projects 🙌
niftynei first time 2019 at lightning conf
second time 2024 bitvoin++ on ecash
these are great times - let's see what comes next
thx a lot for what you are doing, great work
I'm ashamed that I only noticed your white paper now.
If we can be of any use, then gladly ...
What you and others are thinking about is fundamental.
"Foreclosure without the state !?"
don't tell the state, that it can be done without it!
"The use of force is the prerogative of the state!"
It's these fundamentals we are tinkering with ...
;)
nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6
Thanks for sharing the project!
this reminds me of
courts like this one:
https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/resource-library/scc-rules
they are outside (almost entirely) of the state system
but, anyhow, this is the future
been thinking a lot myself about this
but as a lawyer, i do have one piece of advice for you:
always assume the worst case!
and it is sometimes difficult to think around corners like those who will ultimately put the system to the test the most.
Angaben an das Finanzamt (u.a. auch von Dritten aus dem Ausland) - Steuergeheimnis - "automatischer Finanzkonten-Informationsaustausch" - Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung -
Gefahr durch Hacker-Angriffe -
Bundesfinanzhof dazu:
"
Randnummer: 38
Nicht ins Gewicht fällt ferner der nicht näher konkretisierte Vortrag der Kläger, dass die Kontodaten aufgrund eines "Hacker-Angriffs" einem unberechtigten Zugriff Dritter ausgesetzt werden könnten. Wie alle anderen den Finanzbehörden im Rahmen eines Besteuerungsverfahrens übermittelten Daten unterliegen auch die im Rahmen des automatischen Finanzkonten-Informationsaustauschs übermittelten Daten dem Steuergeheimnis nach § 30 AO und werden damit zusätzlich zu den technischen Sicherungen nach § 355 des Strafgesetzbuchs strafrechtlich geschützt. Folgt man dem Argument der Kläger, wäre jegliche Übermittlung von Informationen an die Finanzbehörden in Anbetracht des Rechts auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung der Steuerpflichtigen unzulässig, da die Durchführung des Besteuerungsverfahrens weitestgehend elektronisch erfolgt und somit eine Gefahr von "Hacker-Angriffen" bezüglich sämtlicher Daten des Besteuerungsverfahrens besteht. Im Übrigen hat der BFH bereits mehrfach entschieden, dass das allgemeine Risiko eines sogenannten "Hacker-Angriffs" im überwiegenden Interesse des Gemeinwohls hinzunehmen ist (BFH-Urteil vom 15.05.2018 - VII R 14/17, Rz 22, m.w.N.).
(BFH, Urteil vom 23. Januar 2024 – IX R 36/21 –, BFHE nn, Rn. 38)
"
Klartext: das Gemeinwohl steht über dem Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung - jedenfalls beim Zahlen der Steuern -
Frage:
bei der Staatsverschuldung - bei der unendlichen Geldvermehrung - steht da auch das Gemeinwohl darüber ?
Dann wäre diese Praxis verfassungswidrig ...
dann wäre das Tun der EZB verfassungswidrig
dann wäre Fiat-Geld verfassungswidrig
hm
"US-based Venture Global LNG has signed a head of agreement (HOA) with DTEK’s commercial arm, D. TRADING, to supply LNG to Ukraine and eastern Europe"
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/venture-global-dtek-lng-deal/
this is so fcked up
"With the current five-year deal with Russia’s Gazprom set to expire at the end of the year, ..."
Can anyone remember: what was the reason for the war again?
Even German media / journalists seem to be slowly remembering what they learned in their training. Namely to count one and one together.
In law, there is such a thing as state liability. If an action attributable to the state causes damage to the person affected and this action is unlawful or even obviously unlawful. The action that could come to mind here is called "Action for damages due to loss of profit".
There is a saying in German: Jemanden mit seinen eigenen Waffen schlagen. Or: Beating someone with their own weapons.
Das Thema Chat-Kontrolle kann nicht in den Hintergrund treten. Dazu ist es zu wichtig für den Bürger, die Zivilgesellschaft.
Statistics of the Federal Republic of Germany
"While 1,671 laws with 44,216 individual provisions were still in force on January 1, 2014, there were already 1,792 laws at the beginning of this year, consisting of a total of 52,155 individual provisions. However, the jungle of regulations has not only become denser at the level of laws passed by the Bundestag, but also in terms of statutory regulations. According to the federal government, there were 2,720 federal ordinances with 38,192 individual standards on January 1, 2014. Ten years later, the 2,854 federal ordinances in force consisted of 44,272 individual standards."
this is a nightmare:
"The "European Health Data Space" (EHDS). It is intended to facilitate the exchange of health data within the Union - for medical treatment (primary use) and research (secondary use)."
"the Commission's draft regulation from May 2022 does not provide for any right of objection for those affected."
This means that the normal case is the collection of data without the consent of the citizen. What's more, according to the current draft, they cannot even object to their data being disclosed. So far, no opt-out has been provided for.
This is very reminiscent of the discussions on organ donation.
Here, too, the only thing that can apply is:
OPT-OUT !
"EU Parliament: Green light for 10-second transfers at no extra cost
Direct debits are immediate, incoming payments can take a while. This is to be a thing of the past. The EU Parliament has cleared the way for EU-wide instant transfers at no extra cost. On Wednesday, it adopted a regulation that also sets out measures to protect against fraud.
The new regulation is intended to ensure that private customers and companies do not have to wait for their money and to increase the security of transfers. Transferred funds should reach the recipient's account within ten seconds, regardless of the time of day, the Parliament announced. The payer should also be informed within ten seconds whether the transferred amount has reached the recipient. The fees charged by a payment service provider for instant transfers in euros may not be higher than the fees charged for "non-instant" transfers in euros."