My following list is already a bit too long for that I think, and I'm not sure if it's 100% meatspace humans.
I do try to more actively look at people I follow. E.g. I check who they follow, because they may follow someone interesting but "only" like/zap their posts, which I wouldn't see. I also peruse the profiles of those who interact with me (follow them, or someone they recently boosted).
And I should try the conversations tab a bit more, where you can see who the people you follow are replying to (varies a bit by client..
It takes a bit more manual work than with X because there's not much spontaneous recommendation going on.
Oh that's even less "specific" than with me. My guess is that they're nuking accounts that mention nostr (in their profile?). Though I did that at least a few days earlier, if not weeks.
And now for something … completely different.
nostr:npub1e0z776cpe0gllgktjk54fuzv8pdfxmq6smsmh8xd7t8s7n474n9smk0txy does splicing in CLN require opening a brand new channel? And do you know any public nodes that already support it? Feeling reckless...
And if you're having difficulty unfolding the thread, here's the whole thing in on message…
I simplified the employer side here. They would also use the UI, but for simplicity I assume they just put the salary in the smart contract manually, North Korea style.
The employee then uses the UI to retrieve the salary. That way their boss can't see what they do with it. This UI is hosted on a website*, some web3 magick where you use a browser plugin to connect your wallet. In addition to providing a nice user interface, it also picks a relayer for the employee.
A relayer is a third party smart contract that makes it easier and more private to withdraw. They get a percentage fee for that. It's non-custodial though! The DoJ hints that they're also after the people running them, but that's for another time.
* = slightly oversimplifying, because with web3 you could in theory put the whole site on IP (Inter Planetary File System) and have the smart contract point to it. But afaik that wasn't the case here (yet).
There are multiple relays out there, so how does the UI decide which one to use? Well, one way would be to always pick the one with the lowest fee. But then you can't have tokenomics. And VC investors want tokenomics. So what do you do as a founder? YOU MAKE A TOKEN
The idea for the token (called TORN) was that relayers can stake it. This increases the chance of their relay being picked. That's represented by the green line on the left going from TORN to the Relayer. They're a buying force.
Then of course there's the founders who received coins in the pre-mine (according to the DoJ). That's the red line on the left.
Now if that was all there's to this, you could perhaps make a (vague) case for profiting from money laundering as follows:
1. Some bad people use the UI and relay system
2. Relay operators pump the token price in order to get business from these bad people
3. Founders take profit by selling tokens
However this does NOT prove the founders profited from North Korean hackers laundering their proceeds. Because they (until proven otherwise) don't use the relay system, so relayers do not buy TORN to get them as a customer, so there's no token pump and no profit to take.
But it's more complicated than that. Of course it is, sigh. And that's the green arrow on the right: speculators. These are not people in the business of laundering money. They don't (necessarily) use the Tornado Cash system. They simply buy the token because number go up. Some people might call them degens.
So now when the price goes up and founders sell some tokens, where did those profits originate? From crime or from speculation? The DoJ makes zero effort, at least in what they published, to distinguish this. But will a judge / jury understand that? Or care? We'll find out.
But wait, there's more. What's unique about the founders is that they have control over the hosting. . That's what's represented with the dashed line to the UI. They also put in more work in the form of writing code, marketing, etc.. The DoJ mentions all that in order to argue they're a business.
But what about that DAO? It seems to control rather important stuff like how the relay selection works. Hence the other dotted line from TORN token holders to that DAO and from the DAO to the UI. So this begs the question what the liability is for the other token holders.
Control aside, all token holders make money if the price goes up. So what happens to the VC if they ever decide to take profit?
Simplified picture of the Tornado Cash ecosystem, to the extend that I think it's relevant to the current criminal cases. See, it's not complicated!
The workflow for North Korean hackers in on the left. Until the prosecutor proofs otherwise, I think it's reasonable to assume they simply send coins to the core immutable smart contract and then take it out themselves. They're technically sophisticated enough to do this; they're in the business of hacking smart contracts. It minimises the evidence trail for them. In theory it also avoids problems with US hosted services banning their IP, but they probably just use Tor.
Now for more mainstream users... it's more complicated. I picked an employer paying their employee as an example.
(accidentally deleted the original - at least on some relays… continue to the rest of that thread here: note1f0sjtt2vr2u3f8u27jw08ney344hhqr5jm9trfkjx45c4h5yp42qxmm472)
I still have the raw post as JSON, so I wonder if I can rebroadcast it...
Oh crap and now I deleted the original post instead of the spurious repost.
Let's also remember that US sanctions law is evil, designed by the same sorts of people who thought waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and Espionage Acts are good ideas. Oh and they're also the same people who banned encryption back in the day.
All that is to say that: have lower expectations when it comes to achieving good outcomes via the legal system when it comes down to US imperialism. The regular old fashioned justice system in contrast at least pays lip service to human rights.
All this complexity is to say that, for the OFAC case, it's unclear to me if it's worth the energy to fight it. I think the judge is incorrect in allowing the core contract on the sanctions list, but the DAO contracts and tokens are quite similar to a company.
What's more important is that if there's ever a clear cut case - an autonomous smart contract that's not paying anyone - then a judge must be convinced the current case is materially different and not useful as precedent. But that's up to CoinCenter and people with stuck ETH to strategise.
The criminal cases are more important, because - even WITH the tokens - they hinge on the distinction between custodial and non-custodial wallets / mixers. Ceding an inch there could be very bad.
note1rzfm5r79lf5tdxm0zn29kpfy7t4hd80ypznraqaxu2qdmm0cmfhqsmxevk
Great, some clients instantly repost, others give you a choice first whether you want to repost or quote-post…
nostr:npub1vadcfln4ugt2h9ruwsuwu5vu5am4xaka7pw6m7axy79aqyhp6u5q9knuu7 nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
But yeah, if this case it not defeated, then it's not non-custodial privacy tools that are next. They might even try an all out attack on non-custodial wallets. Starting with the ones run by for profit companies. These currently enjoy protection in both the US and EU, for very different legal reasons. But as more people use them, they make sense as the next choke point.
Depends on what functions can be upgraded. Also there's a limit to how convoluted an argument they'll get away with. The Coin Center article suggests that the DoJ is being a bit handwavy here.
nostr:note1rkymf8u4dnqslln9k78u9z3u3gph78rjx90g93hpeau8y748eu9qnqztru
So I'm not the only one to observe this: https://www.coincenter.org/new-tornado-cash-indictments-seem-to-run-counter-to-fincen-guidance/
This makes the comparison to the Dutch case even murkier, since we don't have this registration thing. Here the charge is simply money laundering, but that's a higher bar to prove than simply not having a license.
This may actually turn out to be an international copy-paste screwup. Since both prosecutors are dealing with completely different legal frameworks and need to prove different things. But presumably they shared all the evidence.
Some of the reasoning (especially the worst parts)/in the indictment is so similar to what I heard the Dutch prosecutor say that I suspect one side copy-pasted the other. Probably the US copying NL, lowering the charge from actual money laundering to just conspiracy, and then - out of habbit and without reading the FinCen guidance - slapping on the missing registration thing.
If they HAD read that guidence they presumably would have referred to it and explain why it doesn't apply.
nostr:note1rkymf8u4dnqslln9k78u9z3u3gph78rjx90g93hpeau8y748eu9qnqztru
So I'm not the only one to observe this: https://www.coincenter.org/new-tornado-cash-indictments-seem-to-run-counter-to-fincen-guidance/
This makes the comparison to the Dutch case even murkier, since we don't have this registration thing. Here the charge is simply money laundering, but that's a higher bar to prove than simply not having a license.
Barely useful backup script...
But wait, there's more. What's unique about the founders is that they have control over the hosting. . That's what's represented with the dashed line to the UI. They also put in more work in the form of writing code, marketing, etc.. The DoJ mentions all that in order to argue they're a business.
But what about that DAO? It seems to control rather important stuff like how the relay selection works. Hence the other dotted line from TORN token holders to that DAO and from the DAO to the UI. So this begs the question what the liability is for the other token holders.
Control aside, all token holders make money if the price goes up. So what happens to the VC if they ever decide to take profit?
But it's more complicated than that. Of course it is, sigh. And that's the green arrow on the right: speculators. These are not people in the business of laundering money. They don't (necessarily) use the Tornado Cash system. They simply buy the token because number go up. Some people might call them degens.
So now when the price goes up and founders sell some tokens, where did those profits originate? From crime or from speculation? The DoJ makes zero effort, at least in what they published, to distinguish this. But will a judge / jury understand that? Or care? We'll find out.
The idea for the token (called TORN) was that relayers can stake it. This increases the chance of their relay being picked. That's represented by the green line on the left going from TORN to the Relayer. They're a buying force.
Then of course there's the founders who received coins in the pre-mine (according to the DoJ). That's the red line on the left.
Now if that was all there's to this, you could perhaps make a (vague) case for profiting from money laundering as follows:
1. Some bad people use the UI and relay system
2. Relay operators pump the token price in order to get business from these bad people
3. Founders take profit by selling tokens
However this does NOT prove the founders profited from North Korean hackers laundering their proceeds. Because they (until proven otherwise) don't use the relay system, so relayers do not buy TORN to get them as a customer, so there's no token pump and no profit to take.