Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by orochimaaru 764 days ago
Did he just create the code or also manage the infrastructure and services through which the transactions happen?

The former - I don’t think anyone could convict him. It’s just code in a git repo somewhere. The latter - he is responsible for kyc like all other financial applications.
2 comments
bryceneal 764 days ago
My understanding is that he wrote the code for the smart contracts and open sourced it on GitHub. The contracts were compiled and deployed to the Ethereum network. There was no infrastructure/service controlled by him responsible for running the code or processing the transactions. The core contract, once deployed to Ethereum; could not be modified or deleted by anyone.

The only "infrastructure" in the traditional sense operated by him was a static website hosted somewhere online (which was eventually taken down at the request of law enforcement). The static website offered an optional interface to the Ethereum network for convenience in interacting with the deployed smart contract. The network requests from this website were made to a public Ethereum API provider specified by the end user through their own general-purpose Ethereum wallet browser extension.

link
orochimaaru 763 days ago
I think deploying to the etherium network and providing the api is probably the murky area. Who is responsible for knowing the users - etherium or the provider of the contracts.

If he had not deployed anything and it was just code in his repo I would have said this is a really dangerous ruling. It opens up every open source dev to be on the hook for any use of their software.

On the other hand if this was something deployed then it becomes much more subjective.

link
kayodelycaon 764 days ago
It sounds like he got convicted for designing, writing, distributing, and promoting a system whose primary usage facilitates money laundering.

For an extreme example of the same concept: creating an open-source terrain-following and target-tracking drone software that accepts plugins for “cameras”. People are using it to make hunter-killer weapons and you know about it. You’re going to have a very bad day when federal police come knocking.

Software isn’t created in a vacuum. How you react when the police come will often determine your outcome. If you immediately take it down upon being informed, then you have the defense you didn’t know it was illegal. You’re unlikely to be charged. Fighting for “your rights” is proof you intended to facilitate illegal use of the software and people will be wanting to make an example out of you.

(Note, this is in reference to criminal law, not civil law like copyright.)

link