Ah whatever, looks safe… let's try

I think there is a button you can use to disable that. Or is this as private as it gets?

And it's worse. IIUC the money laundering charge is *conspiracy*. So they needed to have the intention of someone using the UI to launder money, and take one concrete step towards it (like writing the code). If such a charge survives, even if a license wasn't needed, that's a problem.

The Netherlands doesn't even have a license system for this, so it's really just about the question whether or not this was (actual, not conspiracy to) money laundering.

That said, the DAO didn't control the core contract. So to the extend that the core contract was used *without* any of the ancillary tools (website, DAO controlled smart contracts) then you COULD still maintain you had no control over that activity.

Unfortunately the DoJ probably just needs to prove *one* money launderer using the UI (based on CloudFlare records or something) for the money laundering charge to hold.

So then the defense in the US would have to fall back on the non-custodial side of things. At minimum they didn't need a license.

Not necessarily. You can specify which functions can be upgraded and which can't. For example some functions could be hard-code in the main smart contract, whereas others delegate to another smart contract, the address of which is stored in a variable. Ideally then those variables can only be changed by token vote, but my guess is that initially there was an admin who could do that.

However if "aspects of cryptography" could be changed, then most likely it would have been possible to brick the contract. But that would be destroying the company entirely, and so may not be an reasonable thing to demand. Plus it's rather pedantic, which itself doesn't always go well in court.

But imo the admin override doesn't matter. If it was a pure DAO then you just say "criminal conspiracy" and now all the token holders and developer are liable for the whole thing. Then all you need to do is *not* arrest the token holders (including the VC) and only arrest the developers and presto.

Hmm I'm not sure whether I completely buy what I just wrote there 😆

Take this passage from the coincenter article:

"We’re still researching but to our knowledge the only control that the defendants ever had over the smart contracts was the ability to change aspects of cryptography related to Tornado Cash’s privacy features and never had any ability to actually access, move, or direct the user funds in the contract. If that technical analysis is accurate then it does not seem likely the defendants ever had the sort of “independent control” over the transmitted value that FinCEN describes in its guidance, and, accordingly it seems that this alleged activity would also not constitute unlicensed money transmission."

If the ability to update the contract exists, one naturally assumes that it means ability to update *anything*, so one can sort of claim they have custody of funds.

And then on the other hand, these updates are always going to be 100% public (even if code is obfuscated), so "in theory" people can just not send funds to it when it changes in a way they don't want.

I honestly have no idea at this point 😆

Full text search has been merged in #Mastodon `main` branch, and will be in the next (and final?) 4.2.0 beta 🎉

It is opt-in, so it will take some time to be filled with people content as they enable their profile to be indexed, but this was one of the most wanted Mastodon features for some time.

We plan to deploy it to mastodon.social and mastodon.online in the coming days to have a bit more feedback on it and see how it behaves in the wild.

An update on this:

We’ve secured the Twitter/C account and removed all malicious posts.

Sorry again and thanks for bearing with us through that nostr:note13lxfhd4dfme97r5ut3fdkce2qmq2ph5tqv0mjunrgq2cxpv4e58q9kkkpx

i think you can do it with existing channels, as long as your peer supports it!

Nice! Though I find the reply UX a bit confusing. Perhaps it's because the preview isn't working, but I also don't think it should be a modal. It makes more sense to have it directly below the post that you're replying to.

And maybe also the left-most button.