No, but enabling the financial transactions of drug cartels and dictatorships like North Korea is what we are talking about here, not your petty play money in crypto cash.
Did you even read the original article? None of that is relevant and comparing it is ridiculous.
This is very explicitly about North Korea (and others) running their ransomware operations at a profit through tornado cash. Of course this isn’t going to fund their nuclear program, but it is still really shit and criminal and effects real people. And the guy you made tornado cash enabled that, and likely (indirectly) profited from it as well. That is not a poor innocent person that can play the victim card here.
This is very explicitly about North Korea (and others) running their ransomware operations at a profit through tornado cash.
I fail to understand how different that is from the examples cited by @SineNomineAnonymous . They are charged with "hav[ing] failed to address their use as illegal money laundering services. ". Did @torproject manage to address their use as a child porn sharing service?
There is a significant difference between enabling cash flows and enabling the exchange of jpgs (only). If Tor had a payment service included that was developed for and used 99% to enable paying for CP, it would be also justified to charge the developers of that payment gateway for aiding in the creation of CP.
No, but enabling the financial transactions of drug cartels and dictatorships like North Korea is what we are talking about here, not your petty play money in crypto cash.
deleted by creator
Did you even read the original article? None of that is relevant and comparing it is ridiculous.
This is very explicitly about North Korea (and others) running their ransomware operations at a profit through tornado cash. Of course this isn’t going to fund their nuclear program, but it is still really shit and criminal and effects real people. And the guy you made tornado cash enabled that, and likely (indirectly) profited from it as well. That is not a poor innocent person that can play the victim card here.
@poVoq
I fail to understand how different that is from the examples cited by @SineNomineAnonymous . They are charged with "hav[ing] failed to address their use as illegal money laundering services. ". Did @torproject manage to address their use as a child porn sharing service?
There is a significant difference between enabling cash flows and enabling the exchange of jpgs (only). If Tor had a payment service included that was developed for and used 99% to enable paying for CP, it would be also justified to charge the developers of that payment gateway for aiding in the creation of CP.