[jiveturkey]

not sure i agree with this.

> But Dutch prosecutors say the case was simpler than all that. It wasn’t about the right to privacy, or the liability of open source developers, they claim, but the choices of an individual. “[Pertsev] made choices writing the code, deploying the code, adding features to the ecosystem. Choice after choice, all the while he knew that criminal money was entering his system,” M. Boerlage, the lead prosecutor on the case, told WIRED ahead of the verdict. “So it’s not about code. It’s about human behavior.”

How is it different than, say, gun or ammo manufacturers? I suppose the quote here is highly simplified and almost all nuance removed, but still. How is this different than metasploit?

[ab5tract]

Wouldn’t a more apt question be “would this apply to a company dedicated to swapping the serial numbers between after market firearms?”

For my taste, the answer is en emphatic yes it would and yes it should.

And I would expect any service offering turn key, automated “metasploit-ing” would find themselves in violation of the law as well.

[beefnugs]

I swear no person on earth ever makes a proper analogy: You can't just gloss over the fact that crypto-currency mixing is a real privacy concern that should exist. If you are a rich m'fer not every person you buy a piece of gum from should know they could blackjack you to get to $billions

Your analogy would have to be more along the lines of the right to privacy that you own a firearm with a particular serial number, instead of every person on earth knowing exactly how to frame you with said serial number openly

[ab5tract]

Are you honestly saying that crypto currencies are so fragile that the mere knowledge of a token identifier is enough to frame the owner for a crime?

If so, that's just further evidence of how ridiculous the entire crypto currency concept is.

It's also kind of amusing that the very mechanism that would supposedly protect you from the extortion is the same mechanism that would allow the criminals to cover their tracks after stealing your crypto.

[jiveturkey]

Sorry I am late to reply so this will probably die quickly.

I am not 100% sure because I can't quite understand, but I think you've got this wrong.

> crypto-currency mixing is a real privacy concern that should exist.

This is the bit I don't understand. Do you mean, wallet addresses are identifiers that give up your privacy, and therefore mixers should exist? I would say that for BTC, yes they are pseudonymous not anonymous, and it's inherent in the design. It doesn't follow though that mixers "should" exist. If you care about privacy you can use a private crypto like monero. I'm not making an argument here that they should not exist, because other kinds of crypto exist that solve this, just that your assertion of the opposite isn't at all obvious and you need to back it up with a reason why privacy "should" be added to BTC. I don't know why anyone has a "right" to privacy with BTC. Why don't you have a "right" to privacy with credit cards or bank checks?

If you are a rich (or poor or whatever) m'fer you don't have a "right" to use BTC privately, even if your safety is at risk.

And you don't have a "right" to own a firearm anonymously either.

Now that said, I also am not sure how swapping serial numbers on guns amounts to authoring the code to mix BTC. In the Netherlands, the jurisdiction in question, firearm ownership is illegal period. In the US, serial swapping is what it is because it's regulated or legalized in that way. In the US, MetasploitaaS would be illegal, for sure. Serial number swapping illegal, for sure. This guy wasn't operating a service and the prosecutor admitted as much. They wrote the code and it was run by others. I am saying, this is like producing the guns (legal if you are registered) and not being liable for murder done by others. The developer wasn't running the tornado service and the prosecutor accepts that to be true. It apparently (excuse me, I'm no expert, just repeating from TFA) runs independently on the Ethereum network. Therefore anyone executing that code on their ethereum "node" or what-have-you, should be liable, not Pertsev.

Is Microsoft being held liable for writing the operating system which accountants can use to cook their books?

I understand there's a degree of intended use, but again to get back to guns, the intended use is clearly to kill, and we don't hold gun manufacturers liable.

I don't have a problem if they want to make the code illegal to write (well, speaking to the issue here, not in general of course -- this would be highly problematic) and in that case they can prosecute him based on writing illegal code. But the crime here is in operating the service.

And just so you understand my underlying feelings here, BTC IMHO is useless, contributes far too much to climate issues to be worth any value it might have, and facilitates crime far more than anything else. To the extent it facilitates so-called victimless crimes like in the older days, okay enough I guess, but it's gotten out of hand and anything and everything that can be done to squash it should be done. It's crooks all the way down. Now with that in mind, I still find this conviction very flawed.