Why US Tornado Cash Sanctions Are Concerning for Open Software(youtube.com)
youtube.com
Why US Tornado Cash Sanctions Are Concerning for Open Software
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpTrCA3tEKM
8 comments
I didn't watch the video; I like to read at reading speed, not listen at presentation speed. Does the presentation argue that the open source is relevant to the sanctions? Or put differently, do they argue that if the same code/SaaS had been closed source, it would have escaped sanctions?
The speaker claims this is the first US sanctions against ownerless smart contracts and open source software. Usually sanctions target a person or legal entity, who has the right to appeal and challenge a sanction. In this case, the speaker notes, there is no person behind the sanction that can appeal it. The speaker goes on to discuss the implications of these actions and whether it breaks the 1st and 4th amendments.
I would recommend watching the video as the speaker is well educated on the subject of law and blockchain, but you can also see an article on the sanctions here[1].
[1] https://uk.style.yahoo.com/government-takes-tornado-mixer-ma...
I would recommend watching the video as the speaker is well educated on the subject of law and blockchain, but you can also see an article on the sanctions here[1].
[1] https://uk.style.yahoo.com/government-takes-tornado-mixer-ma...
I see, thanks.
The relevant trait of open source seems to be that the authors are readily identifiable. The US OFAC decided to sanction Tornado Cash for reasons that have nothing to do with open source, and then (probably) used open source to find the most important maintainer, and sanctioned him personally.
Finding the most important maintainer of a closed-source web service shouldn't be impossible, but open source clearly makes it simpler: No subpoena required.
The relevant trait of open source seems to be that the authors are readily identifiable. The US OFAC decided to sanction Tornado Cash for reasons that have nothing to do with open source, and then (probably) used open source to find the most important maintainer, and sanctioned him personally.
Finding the most important maintainer of a closed-source web service shouldn't be impossible, but open source clearly makes it simpler: No subpoena required.
The developer was not sanctioned or included in the sanction. Only "Tornado Cash" the open source project and some specific smart contract addresses.
One developer's github account was suspended, which is a sanction, and may be a significant one depending on what he did for a living.
Software code is not law. Law regulates software industry not vice-versa.
> Law regulates software industry
After the fact, where it can.
Effectively, "next generation" software has enjoyed much freedom from government intervention — in fact, they're usually the ones building it, and/or using it until it becomes too mainstream.
After the fact, where it can.
Effectively, "next generation" software has enjoyed much freedom from government intervention — in fact, they're usually the ones building it, and/or using it until it becomes too mainstream.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, the speaker did not ever claim that software code is law.
The speaker talks about the implications of the first US sanctions that target open source software and ownerless smart contracts.
The speaker talks about the implications of the first US sanctions that target open source software and ownerless smart contracts.