[brookst]

Key quote:

> While Pertsev added functionality to the web interface that allowed legitimate users to separate their funds from those arriving from known criminal addresses, they characterized the effort as “too little and too late.”

I admit it sounds pretty damning to have a UI affordance for “keep my funds separate from the known criminals this service knowingly serves”.

I have little sympathy for those who intentionally increase crime as some kind of political statement, but it seems like maintaining plausible deniability would be very important to those who do so.

[joemazerino]

"Known criminal addresses" isn't an easy nut to crack. False positives prevail and the list is held by institutions readily hostile towards crypto. People who used Tornado Cash themselves, even non-criminals, are marked as criminals because of the way the lists are maintained. The article itself says "30% of the funds were from illicit activity", which leaves 70%. When is the last time a bank enabling criminals like HSBC had it's directors arrested and thrown in jail?

This sets a dangerous precedent.

[brookst]

> "Known criminal addresses" isn't an easy nut to crack.

True. But good faith efforts go a long way. In no world is "separate my funds from those the operators of Tornado believe are illicit" good faith.

> When is the last time a bank enabling criminals like HSBC had it's directors arrested and thrown in jail?

Whaddaboutism is not a defense. I fully support jailing the entire executive staff of HSBC. The fact that has not happened does not change the facts or merits of this case, any more than I can get out of a speeding ticket by noting that I read about someone going much faster.

[seventyone]

> In no world is "separate my funds from those the operators of Tornado believe are illicit" good faith.

I'm quite certain Tornadocash didn't believe the addresses were illicit; they got the list from the government like everyone else does. If you have proof Tornadocash kept made their own list of criminals please share your source

[BugsJustFindMe]

I hope you don't think that distinction makes a difference. If you want, you can rephrase the statements to

In no world is "separate my funds from those the operators of Tornado have been informed by the government are illicit" good faith.

and

“keep my funds separate from the ones the government has said it's illegal to serve that this service knowingly serves anyway”

[JumpCrisscross]

> People who used Tornado Cash themselves, even non-criminals, are marked as criminals because of the way the lists are maintained

Eh, they’re marked as suspicious. (Correctly.) But I don’t know if merely using Tornado would be enough to convict on in most competent jurisdictions.

[lambdaxyzw]

Of course not, but merely using tornado cash would be enough to make many "regular" cryptocurrency exchanges refuse to work with you and/or ban you. Or even someone sending you transfer from tornado.cash, or receiving a transfer from someone that uses tornado cash. Tainting is unfortunately very inexact and heuristic based.