Anyway, very hand-wavy argument from the prosecutor.

Ya'll better crowdfund them good lawyers. Because the same reasoning can be used against, say, a non-custodial phone wallet that doesn't have KYC.

I mean to a specific post. Though that one is handy too.

What is it with people and self-incriminating (appearing) text messages ffs.

THE FBI CAN READ ANYTHING YOU EVER ENTERED ON ANY FUCKING KEYBOARD - or least you should live accordingly. Like how a gun is always loaded even if you just checked and saw it wasn't loaded

Yes they could have. And then someone would clone the UI code and remove the KYC stuff. So it's a non-starter. It's misleading of both the Dutch and US prosecutor to pretend otherwise.

They're going for the "profit from tokenomics" angle it seems... Remember that's very indirect: relay operators buy tokens in order to get priority from UI users (this can be bypassed with some technical skill, certainly by the North Koreans), which drives up the price. More realistically, and what probably ACTUALLY happened, is that degens pushed up the price. So the profits came from gambling, not laundering. But maybe that's why they're only charged with conspiracy.

Reading on...

The plot thickens, but it seems to hone in on the centralized parts of the system - as opposed to the core contract.

They're facing up to 45 years in the US, I'd be shocked if it's more than 5 over here. I think the max is 8: https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/beleidsregels/richtlijnen-voor-strafvordering-resultaten/richtlijn-voor-strafvordering-witwassen-2021r004

I physically visited the first couple of hearings in The Netherlands. But the Dutch prosecutor is less transparent than the Americans. All we had until today were (fairly high level) oral arguments made in court.

I assume they've collaborated in making the case (or even copy pasted stuff). But it's also possible they're both making completely different arguments.

And the biggest question: will Pertsev (CC-1) get the 'best' deal of all with just a few years in Dutch prison (if he's convicted at all), or the worst - by doing that and then, only after being release, suddenly getting extradited at the request of an extra vindictive US prosecutor?

But anyway, continuing to read... what's the charge?

Or you can listen to nostr:npub1art8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqhpm0w5 and me explain it last year: https://podcast.sprovoost.nl/@nado/episodes/bitcoin-explained-69-the-tornado-cash-trial

At least up to point 31 it provides a solid explanation of the whole system, which matches my understanding of it. Worth reading.

Please don't do the obviously stupid thing I know you're going to do.

nostr:nevent1qqspsvwchft8vjjy27mzgq35avue64wf623djqsu77s7kxk5s0nn59gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgq3q2t7u5x9lnpphts9e4zyhm2dhmcelus5rsp5scpthyv5sgekg7hrsxpqqqqqqzmy22hp

I don't care for hard character limits, but I do try to write my threads into little chunks, that in principle can be disused individually. That is with proper sub-thread support.............

Now back to the indictment...

(I might get some sleep first though)

"You didn't do your homework, therefore government wins" (and anyone with coins trapped remains, as they have been for the past year, royally screwed.

The free speech part of the ruling suggests to me that they could have made a good case, but just didn't.

In the appeal, maybe try explaining how it is impossible to build an alternative system that would not inevitably get sanctioned. But then perhaps the judge will say: if you can't use a decentralized system to pay someone, that's tough luck, use a centralized shitcoin like USD.

Imo by far the biggest problem here is the sanctioning of the core contract.

The weather probably wasn't the best analogy, but the judge misses the point here imo. Again perhaps because it was near impossible to explain with all the tokenomics noise.

The weather in this analogy is the immutable core smart contract, not the 'the crypto-economy'. It may have an "property interest in smart contracts" but not in that particular one. Which happens to be the one that causes the most egregious violation of property rights for all American users (who could otherwise retrieve their coins with some manual commands not involving anything controlled by the DAO).

Thanks, will try.

There is no 'stream of revenue" whatsoever from the immutable core Tornado Cash contracts to the DAO. Only (indirectly, by means of their owners investing in TORN tokens) from the relayers to the DAO. The judge doesn't notice this distinction, and I can't fully blame them.

But on Amethyst is does show the whole thread.

But I think it didn't show up on my profile before I boosted myself. Though I may misremember that.