Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 09:07:51 JST Molly White

   The Fifth Circuit has just opined that the smart contracts that comprise the Tornado Cash cryptocurrency tumbler are "not property because they are not capable of being owned", and thus cannot be sanctioned by OFAC.

   #crypto #cryptocurrency #TornadoCash

   • Seth :rebel: :fist_raised: ⁂ and Mr. Bill repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 09:10:07 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     Some background on the Tornado Cash issue, and some of my thoughts on it from earlier this year: https://www.citationneeded.news/tornado-cash/

     #crypto #cryptocurrency #TornadoCash

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 09:27:44 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     Here's the full decision: https://storage.mollywhite.net/pdfs/TornadoCash5Cir.pdf

     (CourtListener/RECAP doesn't like it because PACER has a split PDF, apologies)

     #crypto #cryptocurrency #TornadoCash

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 09:37:55 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     • Xavier Ashe :donor:

     @Xavier TBD!

   • Embed this notice
     Xavier Ashe :donor: (xavier@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 09:37:56 JST Xavier Ashe :donor:

     in reply to

     @molly0xfff Does this settle things, or will this be challenged in higher courts?

   • Embed this notice
     FeralRobots (feralrobots@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 10:24:54 JST FeralRobots

     in reply to

     @molly0xfff wait a sec: if they contracts can't be owned, how can the assets be "theirs" to retrieve?

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 10:24:54 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     • FeralRobots

     @FeralRobots think of the smart contracts as a machine that allows you to put $ in and in exchange you get a unique ticket. when you put that ticket back in the machine at some later point, it gives you the same amount of $ back. they're saying that the machine itself can't be controlled (namely, it can't be made to exclude any particular person from putting money or codes into it). the contents of the machine are a different question.

   • Embed this notice
     xek (xek@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 10:57:24 JST xek

     in reply to

     @molly0xfff I wonder one of the judges is free to officiate Lord Wheatherby's wedding, or if they only commit to the bit when playing pretend with cryptobros.

     https://www.youtube.com/shorts/519lHwutZi0

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 10:59:16 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     • SΞRΞNO

     @sereno
     1. The original lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Texas (quite deliberately, I'm sure, by finding a supposedly harmed plaintiff who resided there). Thus the appeal went to the Fifth Circuit.

     2. I wouldn't say they do, the technical details seem accurate to me (at least at first read).

   • Embed this notice
     SΞRΞNO (sereno@masto.nobigtech.es)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 10:59:18 JST SΞRΞNO

     in reply to

     @molly0xfff Two questions arise now that I've read the decision.

     1. Why was the lawsuit filed within the Fifth Circuit?

     2. To what extent does the court overstate the actual immutability of the smart contracts at issue?

   • Embed this notice
     Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 11:03:33 JST Molly White

     in reply to

     • SΞRΞNO

     @sereno at least in the way the court has defined "immutable" here. (a lot of crypto projects are, unsurprisingly, a lot looser with their definitions)

   • Embed this notice
     SΞRΞNO (sereno@masto.nobigtech.es)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Nov-2024 11:03:35 JST SΞRΞNO

     in reply to

     @molly0xfff 1. That was certainly my assumption.

     2. That's something, at least. I don't know enough about the tech, but I take it there's no way to e.g. destroy an immutable smart contract short of wiping out the blockchain it's minted on?