TC

drewster23

Yes TC is an injustice, that's my point this is normal criminal justice. If you couldn't tell that's a typo, considering my last line I spelt it properly. The education system has evidently failed you.

rylanchan

You don't even understand the difference between Corda and Overledger. They are not competitors they provide different pieces of the puzzle. One is a Blockchain (CORDA) and the other is an interoperability solution. I can assure you that chainlink will have very low adoption outside of the crypto defi. No one will use CCIP it is a seriously lame attempt to create a standard without prior adoption. You don't create standards alone. You do that together with the biggest companies, consortiums and standard organizations. Like how Gilbert Verdian started the ISO/TC307 and how Quant network launched the IETF initiative SATP together with MIT. Sergey is a grifter kid that somehow managed to raise an astronomical amount, is currently dumping on bag holders and will continue this for a long time.

redrumeight

Definately the Hong Kong news for me. And that GBTC could actually be sold out, despite having still ~300k ₿TC on their sheets.

BTCBette

₿TC *is* my savings, so yolo I guess 😅

TatarAmerican

I love a good mystery. His academic publications end abruptly in 2014. He now appears to be an executive at Mitsubishi. Any theories about what this might mean? From January 2007 [Link](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-chair/200701/msg00257.html): Dr. Naohiko Uramoto from IBM has been removed from OASIS Web Services Security (WSS) TC (Group deactivated)

xGsGt

You can recover with TC, it would be as you lost your hardware

1UazZNfbWi

tl;dr (repost) Disposals of bitcoin via exchanges which are banks may be exempt from UK Capital Gains Tax if made on or after 7 Sep 2021. # # # Further to my original post (https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/pjh4r3/as_a_currency_of_el_salvador_btc_is_now_exempt/), S.35 of the Finance Act (2012) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/14/section/35) amended the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act (1992) so that gains made on foreign currency held in bank accounts are not liable to UK Capital Gains Tax with effect from 6 April 2012 (I have changed the wording to make it more precise). The legal wording is: [CGT] does not apply in relation to a gain accruing to a person [an individual or trustee (not a trader)] on a disposal of a foreign currency debt [owed by a bank in a currency other than sterling and represented by a sum standing to the credit of an account-holder in an account in that bank]. The steps are: An individual [UK citizen] transfers BTC to an exchange that has a banking licence. This is not a taxable event as it is like for like. Also HMRC principle 'a man cannot trade with himself' [see Ayrshire Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v CIR (1946) 27TC331]. The BTC is now a 'debt owed by a bank in a currency other than sterling and represented by a sum standing to the credit of an account-holder in an account in that bank'. (It has changed from being sovereign money to being debt-based money). It only remains to argue that, since BTC is legal tender in El Salvador it is a foreign currency [currency other than sterling]. Since CGT only applies to gains when they are realised (not when they are made), CGT should not apply to gains on disposals made from banks on or after 7 September 2021, even if the gain was made before then. The bitcoin can be held in any bank (does not have to be El Salvadorean or UK). HMRC says in its crypto manual (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/cryptoassets-manual/crypto22550) 'HMRC does not consider cryptoassets to be currency or money. This reflects the position previously set out by the Cryptoasset Taskforce report (CATF). This means that sections 252 and 269 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 do not apply.' However the CATF published their opinion in October 2018 and only considered whether bitcoin was currency or money in the UK. Bitcoin was adopted as legal tender in El Salvador in September 2021. Use this information at your own risk but don't come crying to me if HMRC shuts this loophole while you're hesitating. See also https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg78321

Individual_Camel_248

I told my family & friends this is a great thing. They looked at me like my invisible tinfoil hat was showing (😆) I explained that people are taking profits; institutions are doing what they can to get the price lower so they too can buy as low as possible; weak hands are folding like the paper they’re made of. Shooooot, I used the few bucks I was gonna use to buy Baldur’s Gate 3 to grab some ₿TC dust cause it was all I had at the moment. Buy the dip if you can. But HODL all that you have. “Don’t be no punk bish…”🤣🤣🤣🤣

MoneroFox

DOGE price is $0.205, but ℍit𝔹TC is about half.

Designer_Antelope719

COMFY Community has decided to send a blanket. https://twitter.com/SoComfyToken/status/1773442547072860590?t=9Gtw78VY8gBcm5d4TC67SQ&s=19

knuckle_buster69

"For my ancestors...ancestors watch over me..."- TC

GoodSamoSamo

Wow, 50 IQ analysis by someone who doesn’t know shit about the tech - failed transactions = bots trying to MEV and arb, doesn’t mean ppl can’t get a tx through. Try it yourself you dummy. - outages have been resolved thanks to MAJOR network upgrades over past few years, like QUIC and local fee market. Bet you didn’t know that, right? 99.94% uptime over past year… what about Base going down last fall? Blast outage last month? Avalanche outage a few months ago? What about Dymension failing to reach consensus at launch? All chains have their challenges. - idk where you’re getting your inflation figures, but inflation schedule is damn near identical to ETH and it took ETH 7 years to become deflationary. SOL on that same path, but will hit it sooner at this rate. - comparing SOL fees vs ETH fees is dumb as fuck, ETH had a 6 year head start. But whatever, evidence shows SOL fees ramping up and prob will hit ETH levels at some point. DEX activity also continues to be greater on SOL vs. ETH - and for good reason… people don’t wanna have to pay $100 tx fee to settle 20 min later on ETH, nor do they want to pay to bridge to a centralized L2 that is also still too expensive and slow vs. SOL. https://x.com/tokenterminal/status/1769524928246677936?s=46&t=-TC-K012Jd7K3_3hHF-GCg Honestly, incredibly dumb analysis and feel bad for anyone who just blindly follows this. Clear you either don’t know what you’re talking about or want to mislead ppl to pump your bags. In either case, sad.

Extra-Measurement433

Whatever gets sold today will get eaten up by the ETFs, Michael Saylor &TC. We won’t see it under 60K again until who knows when

Lasse363

My boss hold at least one. I dont know the exact amount. His license plate is B TC ----. There is a lot of equipment in the company's basement that he uses for mining. But even then I don't know what exactly he's mining. He was the one who led me to BTC.

Individual_Camel_248

That is a great question. I would HODL, personally. I hear a lot about people borrowing against their Bitcoin via over collateralized loans. But my mindset is that any & all ₿TC I get…belongs to my children/grandchildren

Individual_Camel_248

I’m pretty new here. But, that seems a bit…unwise, for most people. But, if you’ve already done it, I presume you’re financially stable & have income to cover the payments on the loan should shenanigans occur in the market. I think ₿TC is the best thing since pants w/pockets & I wish you the best of luck.

jecoycoy

TC: But what gives Bitcoin value? VP: I’ll get to that point… Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school of economics…

botle_of_rum

TC4LJQDQMso6Lpw67XUuSkg4ZBmSQH4ZXk this is where the money came from

AresBlack149

Meanwhile, in DeFi: TC/ETH, TrumpCoin/ETH, TrumpsCoin/ETH, CheetoCoin/ETH, and CBDCAB/ETH have now all been created. 15 copies of each one, each with their own honeypot contract to boot!

Rand-Omperson

DR. TC Sharma - Best General Physician Doctors in Meerut - Justdial The clinic of DR. T.C. Sharma in Brahmpuri is situated Near Sunaro Ki Dharamshala.

JackRipster

Every network is 34% as explained [here](https://youtu.be/IjQkag6VOo0?si=TC00i07U4uWjG1Zz&t=3668) Which wouldnt be that hard to reach for a group of the large btc mining companies.

FamiliarCow

Yep for sure we all agree it’s unacceptable for funds to be stuck for so long. Sorry to keep you waiting but the fix should be out this week, and then nodes can vote to resume trading on AVAX chain hopefully at the end of the week or early next week. Sorry about the inconvenience, it’s just the way that the system works. In a CEX you can make unilateral decisions and take risks, you can’t do that in a distributed system that touches so many others like thorchain. I find it funny when others compare TC to bridges when its architecture is so different. Frustrating to see people calling it centralized when it reality it’s actually a symptom of the opposite

LargeSnorlax

Dunno about that chief. [Its daily doesn't look too great](https://i.imgur.com/EZu10TC.png) but the thing I don't like about it is it's barely crested 3k holders, which is just above the number all the pump and dump groups run (2-2.5k usually), which means it has basically zero interest except whatever's generated by that specific group who wants to pump it. More organic shitcoins like [Chonky](https://birdeye.so/token/H7ed7UgcLp3ax4X1CQ5WuWDn6d1pprfMMYiv5ejwLWWU?chain=solana) or [Silly](https://birdeye.so/token/7EYnhQoR9YM3N7UoaKRoA44Uy8JeaZV3qyouov87awMs?chain=solana) accumulate into the tens of thousands range, meaning people are actually holding it and it's acquiring new users. MONK looks more like a pump and dump group getting tired and wanting to move on to the next one. Zero holder accumulation and the usual green wick into death.

aminok

If TC were legal, people would probably put all of their money through it, so that they're privacy is protected while they transact on-chain.

DrinkMoreCodeMore

No, it's not. Thankfully TC cant be taken offline and is still online @ tornado.ws

aminok

The 'proposers' being referred to are equivalent "Ethereum" as a collective network. Because not all proposers choose to exclude TC transactions from their blocks, TC transactions are always confirmed by Ethereum, so Ethereum has never censored a transactions. The conference participants use language like "proposer censorship" to magnify the severity of the problem for Ethereum's censorship-resistance ethos, so that it gets addressed. You're taking their deliberately exaggerated language entirely out of context, and then lumping a bunch of F bombs and other insults into your comment to distract from the fact that your interpretation is misleading. Finally, miners within Bitcoin have frequently refused to in include transactions from addresses that are sanctioned, and here you are LARPing as a "Bitcoiner" and pretending the Ethereum space is unique in this regard.

aminok

You throw f-bombs when you desperately that your bullshit is exposed. A validator choosing to not include a transaction in the block they themselves generate is not censorship. No transaction has ever been censored on Ethereum, given every transaction confirms within an average of 30 seconds. Your shameless enough to compare the most censorship resistant platform in history—which continues to process TC transactions—to the establishment.

aminok

Whenever someone starts throwing out f-bombs, you know they're trying to trick you with bravado and rhetoric. A validator not including a transaction in their block has absolutely no impact on the ability of a transaction to be confirmed. TC get confirmed in an average of 30 seconds, and have never failed to get a confirmation

caploves1019

You have a skill, cutting hair, there are no other barbers in town. Your neighbor owns chickens that produce eggs on a daily basis after eating grain from his fields. Neither of you wish to price your goods or services in a mutually accepted medium of exchange but you need eggs and he needs a haircut. How do you evaluate how many eggs he needs to pay you to receive a haircut? Absent a fiat currency, ₿itcoin becomes the censor resistant freearket medium of exchange. The holder of the ₿TC has to evaluate the labor cost associated to obtaining that medium of exchange and what value it holds in the market for the goods and services they wish to obtain with it. In a free market economy without manipulation, an equilibrium occurs in which the 丰SATs you hold are worth spending at a certain rate for the services rendered. On a Bitcoin standard, Bitcoin holds a value against the cost associated to obtain it, whether you mine Bitcoin or whether you provide power to someone who mines Bitcoin (food, energy, land, shelter, clothing), the market balances out to lock a consistently improving value for said mined ₿tc against the cost to mine it and as the difficulty increases and the rewards decrease, number go up (number doesn't represent fiat currency, it represents the stuff you earn for trading your hard earned sats).

minorthreatmikey

> The market cap of bitcoin increased by $63 billion dollars from a few hundred million invested…That means that ₿TC’s market cap increases by $193 for every $1 invested in the coin No, market cap is just the product of supply of coins and price of coin, nothing more. And price of coin depends on buyer and seller liquidity, not “how much is invested”. Imagine this extreme imaginary scenario where everyone agrees to not sell any bitcoin. That includes whales, miners, institutions, retail, etc… Now, if I log onto an exchange and try to buy $5 worth of bitcoin, the exchange algo will see that there are no sellers at the current price and it’ll look for a higher price. There is no higher price so it goes higher. It keeps repeating that until some jack ass finally says, “ok, my bitcoin crumbs are now worth the gdp of the solar system, so I’m going to fill this guy’s $5 buy order with 1 micro satoshi”. Once that trade happens, that new, extremely elevated price _is_the new price. Only $5 was invested and because liquidity was so low (non existent in our fake scenario) it sent bitcoin to the moon. Now of course, others will start selling and no one would be buying at this crazy price and price would fall back down until there are equal volumes of buying and selling pressure. So back to reality - sometimes, liquidity is really low and hundreds of millions will cause price to make violent moves. Other times, the liquidity will be there and hundreds of millions will barely make a dent. Normally, liquidity increases as the asset gets more valuable.

DrinkMoreCodeMore

It's still up and very active. They even have a Twitter account. TC can't even be stopped.

PepeDeCorozal

Show them Nostr. If they can understand why eBay and Amazon and Netflix are worth billions, they can understand why the next platform that replaces HTTP and TC-IP will be valuable. And it runs on the Bitcoin network.

IamKingBeagle

Forgive my ignorance but isn't TC basically just used to launder money or predominantly illegal activities? Would love some clarity if I'm misinformed.

Guilty_Fisherman5168

The problem with TC is it doesn't make ETH fungible. Because ETH that has gone through TC is less desirable. It's just no exchange categories ETH based on hops from TC. with XMR you don't need to worry about tainted coins and being asked for proof of funds

JerryLeeDog

Hurdles would be proportional to what level of adoption we are talking. It's going to need to jump a different set of hurdles to become legal tender in various countries than it would to become the reserve currency of the world, for example. One step at a time, but the end boss for world reserve status is pretty powerful and not going to be looking to lose that power any time soon. As a protocol, I equate Bitcoin to TC/IP and agree, as a base layer for the future or potential finance, it has won in spades.

drewster23

They caught/arrested 2/3 of them. So 1 is still at large. Albeit I doubt TC requires much management/upkeep.

Legal-Bid2695


anon2414691

What you’re missing is the fact that Bitcoin is a new monetary technology that is totally separate from the fiat money system, which is already so engrained into society. Even if Bitcoin was just some other really great networked technology that wasn’t supplanting an entrenched societal standard, it would still take many years for global adoption to really catch on. Our modern version of TC/IP was more or less finished in the early 80’s, and yet the internet didn’t really become popular among normal people until the late 90s and 2000s. It wasn’t until the late 2000s that it was becoming quite obvious to everybody how useful the internet was and still is. It took TCP/IP about 20 years, and that was with a human-readable messaging system (email—SMTP, POP, IMAP protocols) present from the very early years, early to mid 80’s. We only got LNURL Lightning addresses just a few years ago, before that Bitcoin was still quite technically challenging and foreign, even for techies. So, combine those things in your mind—an entrenched societal standard (fiat) has to be overcome, inherent limitations in the growth of a network technology, challenging and largely unfinished protocols… … as the guy who’s made the chart of Bitcoin adoption vs TCP/IP adoption, I’m now wondering if it is more appropriate to set the starting date of the comparison to an even earlier year, before TCP/IP was mostly finalized in 1982. There were earlier versions of computer communications protocols even before then, and the TCP/IP protocol I’m sure was drafted probably in the 70s. It might actually be the case that Bitcoin adoption in 2023 is most appropriately compared to the adoption of the internet in, say, 1983, 14 years after ARPANET had two nodes on the network.

Ksmike

Oh I just figured that the macroeconomic of the past 30 years; soft money, low interest rates, and frequent quantitive easing, spoke for itself. If this is new to you maybe try reading « The Bitcoin Standard », or if you really want to push yourself try « Price of Time » rather than this fountain of shit that is TC

3DprintRC

TC doesn't deserve any attention.

Giga79

People still use crypto to buy drugs and other contraband online, frequently, so yes and no. The gov can't stop this, they can only ask everyone not to do it, beyond that it's up to you what happens. The IRS asked everyone to stop using Tornado Cash. TC activity is as high as ever. Now people are trolling others' by dusting their wallet with cents of 'sanctioned TC money' making everyone culpable and making a mockery of the whole thing. If I use Uniswap's back end or someone else's front end, instead of their KYC legal frontend.. straight to jail? $200 fine? Typically the person doesn't get charged, the business faciliting non compliance does - so do we send Ethereum to jail? Jail the Uni dev's for uploading to Ethereum, like we did to the TC dev? None of this makes sense in the matter of enforcement. It makes even less sense when you realize, maybe the majority of activity on DEXs are bots/AI agents who don't have identities. Do we KYC their handler? So we have 4000 versions of Joe Blow using Uniswap? What stops someone from selling their KYC to 3999 other people and claiming they're bots? This is all like trying to shove a square object through a circular hole. And it makes no sense when you research AML. KYC does practically nothing, it doesn't prevent money laundering whatsoever. The same place you can buy drugs using crypto you can buy someone's stolen or otherwise KYC for $5 too. There's been no problem with public ledgers so far. But this may lead to problems. It wouldn't shock me, if this passed, if we saw more privacy features embedded in the base layers of mainstream blockchains - the same LTC already did with Mimblewimble. Then the surveillance stops dead and any information transfer becomes voluntary. Crypto too is headed in a singular direction, one that evolves faster than any government regulation. It wasn't that long ago ETH was solely used for launching unregistered securities (ICOs), a bit more decentralization in the mix and now they're plainly called dApps or tokens. We'll have to see what happens but I wouldn't call it just yet. Imo governments are too inept to figure this out properly, and crypto is too resilliant for any sort of improper attempt at *disposal*.

head77

Thanks. I know something about TC (RIP) and mixers. I just want to know more about these. Any good source?

Calm-Cartographer677

I think you'd also need a license plate of B1TC01N, then it's perfect.

aminok

I do not believe the court understands that. TC is described by the court as a mixer, and given it never takes custody of the funds, it is not that. This is partly owing to the complainents (in the lawsuit) own arguments, comparing TC to a vending machine. I can't imagine an entity being described by a judge as a money transmitter, when the smart contract that that entity uses is understood by the judge to not take custody of the funds to mix them, or otherwise engage in any type of money transmission. Making money providing ancillary software services related to money transmission does not make a party a money transmitter or subject to Money Transmission registration requirements according to FinCEN's own guidance.

FistyFisticuffs

[Code IS in fact protected speech under the First Amendment.](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech). Broadly speaking, you can publish malicious code and it would be protected by the First Amendment, and in fact at least in the US, you are free to charge money for the code you publish, even if it can be used for malicious purposes. Code is not law (and how people can see that statement as anything but an amusing pun is beyond me), but there are similarities: legislatures can debate, write (or have lobbyists write) and then pass into law any unconstitutional law but unless someone is actually affected by the enforcement of the law, if the law is actually enforced or attempted to be enforced, [congress can simply leave bold chapter names that are clearly discriminatory and violate the constitution if it had substance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-7) and sit on it for 115 years and counting. The same applies to miscegenation laws that were never repealed after Loving v. Virginia, and there are still sodomy-related statutes that are plainly unconstitutional if they are enforced in any manner, except they aren't. However, it would be a different story if you used the code to actually attack infrastructure. The particulars of any case would depend on the facts in addition to the law. I'm sure a good deal of people involved in cyberattacks used Windows or MacOS as the basis for their actions, but Microsoft isn't selling "Windows: Criminal Edition" on hackforums. If you market your product in executable form as a tool for criminal purposes, the state would have a much better shot, albeit not an 100% shot as it depends on, once again, the facts and context, in arguing that instead of mere expression, you are actively a part of a criminal conspiracy. The problem was that the government essentially backtracked in their statements since the initial pronouncement on what is plainly both unenforceable and patently ridiculous. In fact, even today, it's still not clear what and under what theory of law the sanctions are actually targeted. After all, the code itself on github is firmly in the 1st Amendment space. Because the blockchain makes the contract simultaneously existing in hundreds of thousands of copies without the node owners being able to selectively make it unavailable, and there's neither a permissioned "gate" or an off switch, effectively making the code self-executing without the deployer having any say in it, the sanction appears to be sanctioning... a piece of deployed code. Sanctioning an inanimate piece of computer code is as ridiculous as it sounds. At this point, the government had clarified that it sanctions the interaction of a US person and the contract (but this is likely still unenforceable, because of the attribution issue that came up in the BitcoinFog case that crypto-literate criminal defense attorneys have known for quite some time), but it remains ambiguous as to whether the restriction is on the particular deployment on this particular chain or something broader. The fact that the government even decided to clarify means that they can make clarifications, which makes their lack of proper outlining of boundaries even more maddening to lawyers and chilling to developers. Would you violate the sanction if you fork the chain and then interact with the contract? Frankly, we don't know. A district court have granted summary judgment on a civil case against the designation, but much of the decision hinges on the degree of deference the court is bound to give to OFAC in anything related to national security that it essentially was handcuffed by precedent to take OFAC's definition at face value. The court giving administrative agencies the benefit of the doubt is incredibly common and even without the added level of deference in a national security case, the government generally prevails on definitional questions especially in the lower courts. The inability of the last administration in following esoteric but extremely favorable directions aside, it's not difficult at all for an agency, OFAC or DHS or Treasury or whatever, to act as judge, jury, and executioner in one go as long as they follow the exact procedures outlined under the APA. That doesn't necessarily mean a higher court would view the facts and the law in the same manner, especially when OFAC relied on defining a DAO as an "organization" that's sanctionable because owning TORN tokens is analogous to holders of stock in a company, except that analogy contradicts the court's other analogy that the contract is like a vending machine, although 80+% of users using the service were making shielded transactions to earn TORN tokens. Vending machines don't distribute interest to its users, or part of its revenue. But I don't know why the downvotes, your concern is valid and in fact, at the heart of the court's analysis under American law. [The criminal matter involving the devs were unsealed recently and for a federal criminal matter it is surprisingly weak](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604937/gov.uscourts.nysd.604937.1.0.pdf), speaking from experience defending federal criminal matters. The feds have effectively an unlimited budget, unlimited time to conduct an investigation, and broad latitude from literally bribing witnesses ("jailhouse snitches") to create deliberate game theory set pieces to pit defendants against each other. Instead, what they came up with was 8/37 pages of background that is mostly irrelevant, which they are entitled to do (charging documents are allowed inadmissible evidence, and no defense lawyer have ever seen an indictment/information that isn't embellished or mistaken in stating the facts), states as fact that Eth is currency as a matter of fact (then why does the IRS insist that it should be taxed otherwise?) and that TORN tokens have pre-determined value at launch (it did not, the value came from AMMs not operated by the defendants)., and with those as priors, attempts to portray relayers (an idea that predates TC) as nefarious, and in the end... **The strongest case the government could make was for conspiracy (two or more people make an agreement + overt act in furtherance) between the two operators of the front end for money laundering and operating without a money transmitter license, based on the continued payment of hosting fees being the overt act, and conspiracy to evade sanctions (which was walked back 2 months after the issuance)**. The federal defenders are extremely competent (as in, if you are not a lawyer, you should go with a federal defender instead of private counsel for cases that might go to trial, since guess who does the most federal trials? Yep, them). More facts will come out and some evidence will be suppressed, but the feds once did a 4 year sting to get my client on possessing 4 Oxy pills so... this is not a great start for the feds, although we'll see what happens, I guess.

DrinkMoreCodeMore

>A privacy protocol, whether Tornado Cash after sanctions have been successfully struck down as illegal by a US court, Minor side note, the TC devs got fucked because the feds could prove via chat logs and various other evidence the devs knew it was being used for laundering by NK and did nothing to stop it. Very easy to catch conspiracy and wire fraud charges this way. Had these logs not been available, they'd have been fine.

johnfintech

Not at all. Neither because of devs messing up as the comment above you claims. Whoever worked with (or was close to operations of) either law enforcement or regulators would tell you that it's about incentive alignment. There is simply much less incentive to go after Monero devs right now (\*) or Monero itself simply because Monero is not actually used that much - despite what Monero buffs here want to believe. It's not about Monero being more obfuscated. TC has had a ton of funds in and out, and virtually every single smart contract exploit was then laundering the funds through TC, and the incident was being covered in the media. If that had happened on Monero instead of TC, then Monero would have been on the radar instead. Yes TC is easier to reveal, but that's secondary. These things score points on political agendas. That's where the incentive comes from. Has nothing to do with protecting the citizen or punishing bad actors (devs taking fees is irrelevant in this case). (\*) keep in mind though that Monero devs had their share of friction with law enforcement in the past, so OP is a little out of the loop.

guy_with_a_smol_dick

TC is a blatant criminal enterprise and if you defend it you are the problem

DrinkMoreCodeMore

From my understanding, the TC devs fucked up. The feds have verified proof and chat logs of them openly discussing and knowing that North Korea was using the service to launder stolen funds. The TC devs then implemented some bs front-end measure to "block" this from happening but even further discussed it was easy to bypass and wouldn't really stop them. That's where and how they are gunna get rekt by law enforcement. Had these logs/evidence not been available or obtained by law enforcement, they would have probably been fine.

SoggyChilli

I have a feeling TC were contacted by authorities and could have stayed out of jail if they played ball but you never know.

MoneroArbo

Yeah sorry, see my edit. There's still a TC v3 even if they didn't/couldn't migrate users.

MoneroArbo

I understand it's not a classic custodial mixer. What I mean is, funds are mixed. All funds that go into TC sit in the same pool. You can only withdraw the amount you put in, of course, and don't give over custody to anyone at any point, but withdrawals come from a common pool of funds made up of all current deposits.

MoneroArbo

But they didn't *only* create code. They programmed in fees that went directly to themselves. There are other issues with TC, but the biggest is that the developers decided to take payment for service. Not only that, but by blacklisting certain addresses they demonstrated a certain level of centralized control of the protocol. If they had published a smart contract they couldn't update or blacklist things from and didn't take fees from users, they probably would have been fine.

MoneroArbo

Look, I'm a pretty big privacy advocate myself, but this is the issue with optional privacy, for one. Tornado Cash existing within Ethereum, like CoinJoins for Bitcoin, inherently flags any coins using those services as sus. Plus, it doesn't *really* bring privacy. Everything going into, and out of, Tornado Cash can be seen by everyone! That's how they knew NK used it in the first place. All it does it obfuscate which transactions coming out the other wise belong to whom. So that's your first problem. Second, it's literally a mixer, as in it metaphorically puts all the funds in a big pot, then allows each person to take out what they put it. If you and North Korea are both using TC, you're mixing your money with Kim Jong Un's money. That's just how the protocol works, and it's not a good look. Finally, Tornado Cash devs were taking a cut of the fees. They were being directly paid by users using the service to mix money with the North Koreans. Hell, they were being paid *by North Korea* for help laundering money. That was enormously stupid of them. Compare with something like Monero where, one, privacy is the default, for all transactions. Two, no funds are ever mixed. All user funds remain separate at all times. And three, the devs are all either volunteers, working on donations, or working for companies that utilize the ecosystem. But fees from the network *never* go to any developer.

Armolin

It's an attack against all security related open source software. The main TC dev spent 8 months without a trial in a Dutch jail for writing open source code he never actually implemented publicly, and he may even go back after the trial. From there to actually start punishing the developer from open source, non-backdoored by the government encryption software there isn't a big difference.

Party_Practice_7292

Poor guys were scapegoats for the whole space, they don't deserve to be in jail and governments know it. They just wanna set an example of them, so that no one will even thinking of creating something like TC. Wish they would do the same and set en example for hackers draining millions of dollars every week. But no, they are not a threat to them, only a threat to the users.

Armolin

The main TC developer spent months in a Dutch jail without a trial. All for writing an open source tool he never implemented himself. From there to governments criminalizing the release of open source non-backdoored encryption tools and algorithms there isn't a big difference. The precedent this is setting is very dark.

Armolin

Tornado Cash is indeed an open source tool anyone can implement and use. The article seems to be trying to associate these two particular individuals who used Tornado Cash with Tornado Cash itself as if they were involved, which is not surprising since the government has been attacking TC for non-stop during the past few months.

aminok

Very upset that Tornado Cash's open source developer was arrested by the FBI. The indictment is a bunch of bad faith arguments that abuse the law, like claiming that he violated AML laws, when FinCEN's own long-standing policies is that an "anonymizing software provider is not a money transmitter." The only software he could have possibly run is the relayers, which never take custody of funds, and thus are purely "anonymizing software". Even the TC smart contracts—which run autonomously on a distributed ledger—don't have custody of funds. The depositer calls the logic to anonymize the funds, but always retains custody of the funds.

kishorexk

Arresting TC devs is equivalent to killing the messenger for doing his job.

aminok

That's not the impression I got from the reasoning provided by the US Treasury and presiding judge. It seems they have to use disingenuous mental gymnastics to construe open source code as property, and that would have been a lot harder to do if the developers of TC hadn't been so intensely involved in promoting the dApp and providing a lot of services in connection to it. I'm curious, do you personally prefer strong financial privacy like what Tornado Cash provides to be prohibited to Americans?

Ok-Western-5799

No one gives a hoot about TC these days when projects like Railgun and secretnetwork are the top privacy protocols in DeFi

VictorOgorodnov

ŁTC

DBRiMatt

Some lovely green candles on the B TC charts. Looks like Internet Explorer users are finally reacting to the SEC accepting Blackrocks application for BTC EFT

bvandepol

 How many do we need?!

KuboBear2017

>Most of the applied benefit of a superconductor would begin top-down, starting with what saves the most energy (or maybe what allows our battleships to pewpew). It would gradually replace the grid starting from the supply, and may not ever actually need to reach the home. Completely agree, but if the material is too brittle they will not be able to use it for such application. When I say "make wires" I don't mean to make them as bendy or flexible as a copper cable, I mean that it is too brittle to make a conductor capable of carrying a current more than a few inches. >With electric power, all the convenience is in the "last mile". But starting from there and following back to the source, conductors will need to carry more and more current, therefor becomes thicker, therefore more rigid, and before long not only are wires not necessary, but not really even ideal. You may have even seen electricians install bar conductors like this. I am saying the current high TC superconductors are to brittle to make long lengths of wires like this. Their consistency polycrystaline and more consistent to a very fragile glass than they are to any metal. >Moving on to the greatest obstacle.. that's being a superconductor to begin with. From what it looks like to me, the current process is producing a material with unreliable, or uneven distribution. Or perhaps it's when the copper atoms are aligning just right. We dunno. But I find it highly promising that we did it by accident, because that means that there's a strong chance that the margin for improvement is wide. I do not believe this is an obstacle. The behavior is consistent with type-2 superconductors. I do not believe this is an issue so much as the very nature of the kind of superconductor this appears to be. The system suggest it forms what are known as Abrikosov vortices. Abrikosov won the Nobel prize for the discovery back in the 70s. My advisor was a former student of his. If it is a type-2 superconductor them the behavior of the system is already very much understood. One last comment, the advantage of this system is that lead can be interchanged with many different metallic elements which will allow the distance between atoms to be fine tuned. The Berkely group that simulated it believes the lead may be substituted with many different atoms and will still demonstrate superconductivity. This will hopefully allow them to fine tuned the physical properties to form useful conductors. I have definitely left the realm of skeptical and reached the point where I am excited and optimistic about these results. The next year will be really exciting.

MikeN1978

That's unfortunate..but thanks TC

OkCycle5884

TC doesn't care about PCE data, it's got its eyes on $28K

Adev22


rootpl

Busted! 

caploves1019

Yes, those services are selling you and IOU to Bitcoin. If the service provider goes bankrupt, you've signed a clause that they owe you nothing, they can sell your IOU to the highest bidder to cover the cost of their bankruptcy. Withdraw that ₿TC to a self custody wallet like sparrow, BlueWallet, samoyrai, or others.

StrivingPlusThriving

This is a really good idea if the $₿TC price is near ATH and you know for a near-fact that the Federal Reserve is about to knock the ever-loving snot out of the markets by QT and raising rates like a rocket. Otherwise you're just building sandcastles in the waves. At this point it's more likely you're going to lose fiat and BTC because the banks and/or exchanges you use will get rugged. As someone else said, focus and build your skills to increase earnings at your current job, or get a side hustle and earn more fiat to stack more sats and move to self-custody once you got enough sats stacked that you don't want to lose. If you don't self-custody, read up on best practices and build those skills first. 🍊💊🧡

Racecarlock

> TC had the advantage that it was mined, so early adopters made bank off of their grassroots efforts. So much for decentralization.

ricozuri

Just waiting for Tesla to reinstate purchasing a car with Bitcoin. Also waiting for Bi TC to hit new ATH so I can actually think about buying any car.

_swnt_

I have the impression, that crypto frauds only harm crypto and don't harm the legitimacy of fist - which is why not rushing putting them into jail isn't so much of a bad idea for them. However, Tornado Cash is like encryption. Regardless of what governments and companies tell you about "protecting your rights and privacy", they really don't want that. Ideally They'd just read all data and save it and make inferences from that. Luckily NSA revelations made it easier to have widespread HTTPS in the internet. But the US doesn't want to have widespread privacy for financial transactions, because they know, cryptography of TC and zero knowledge is unbeatable just like encryption. That's a real danger.

Mr_Bob_Ferguson

>This is bullish for Tornado Cash, right? It shows the faith that the hackers had in the product. Works as intended. **Hackers:** "Thanks TC. Great product. 5 star review."

ScottKavanagh

As OP states with this post and I’ve done the same.. ₿TC and ETH. This is they way.

GuytFromWayBack

ISO TC/307 already exists, we don't want or need a US-built standard.

MinimalGravitas

This is such a dumb video, the entire premise is a hypothetical of what would happen if the US OFAC tried to push censorship on Ethereum... but that has already happened with TornadoCash... and the way out played out was that initially lots of the big entities were indeed soft censoring transactions (not including them in blocks they produced, but still attesting to them if proposed by other validators). If I remember correctly at one point about 3/4 validators were censoring TC transactions, meaning that if you wanted to use TornadoCash or interact in any way with one of the sanctioned addresses it would have taken on average 48 seconds for your transaction to be picked up (compared to 12 seconds for a non-'censored' transaction on Ethereum, or 600 seconds on Bitcoin). However, the amount of compliance with the OFAC sanctions has decreased over time and now only about 1/4 validators are soft-censoring [https://www.mevwatch.info/], so basically the hypothetical from this video has already been tested in a real life scenario and their silly narrative didn't play out at all. As usual, Bitcoin Maxis are making up bollocks about Ethereum to try and mislead uninformed retail investors... i.e. it's just another Tuesday in crypto.

Zomthereum

Good post. I agree, TC.

Legitimate_Suit_3431


GoldenArkad

KYC verified .... (at)3TC on twitter There was some community post about it a while ago i think people tried to figure it out

lordofming-rises

Make TC great again?

Beyonderr

r/cryptocurrency has limit on posts for Coins. Right now there's a ton of posts about the Trump collection. If we'd have a Trump Coin ($TC?), there'd be max 2 in the top 50 😂

johnfintech

Haha, fine - I give you that, at a push I can consider Tornado to be a flash lending platform with a minimum locked value and no native token failing the Howey test for the SEC to come after. Fairly govt resistent as long as there is at least one validator accepting TC transactions (you just have to wait a little longer).

Fuck_Up_Cunts

Tornado Cash uses zk-snarks which require a permissioned trusted setup ceremony. Now that ETH is PoS, TC transactions are also often censored.

bawdyanarchist

That's what summary judgement is for. The judge has the power to say, "No, as a matter of law, it's very clear yall done fucked up, and we're ruling in favor of the TC plantiffs." Now if the judge denies the motion and it has to go to trial, yes, it could get dragged out much further.

002_timmy

I see the argument for banning TC (although I disagree with it). I do not understand the argument for arresting the developer

anonymouscitizen2

Okay Indonesia. Now which bank will let you open an account with no deposit or credentials so I can show you from their own TC it’s not possible. You made the claim, not me. The unbanked number was from memory and it’s outdated. It’s ~2B of adults. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-unbanked-population-in-6-charts-2017-8?amp The bet is between me and you. If you can open a new bank account faster than I create a Bitcoin wallet $1,000, $10,000, $1,000,000 sure. We can have a mod here escrow if your actually serious. It’s literally impossible for me to lose this bet. I’m not going to fly halfway around the world to your country for an anonymous bet. Me vs you online is realistic and doable. Or will you admit creating a bitcoin wallet is faster and easier than opening a bank account?

gr8ful4

Unlike TC, Monero has anonymous devs, that have not been DIRECTLY profiting off the protocol. Also it has a much broader developer community and public interest. Many different communication channels. Gitlab backup in case Github gets interrupted. Monero has a completely different legal standing and is much harder to disrupt by governments than TC. Read more on it here: https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/iti467/perkins_coie_whitepaper_antimoney_laundering/ Of course that doesn't mean Monero doesn't get state attacked. It does. Just in different ways. You can read more on that in my most recent OP.

vinellafprelovedgl

Well that's interesting because Monero seems to be way more effective at laundering assets that Tornado but still, hackers choose TC over Monero. Is there any limitation to prevent such behavior with Monero? Or is it just a basic liquidity issue?

Kristkind

TC was also branded as a privacy service. The difference is cosmetic at best.

BlubberWall

There haven’t been major hacks using the XMR atomic swaps yet. The low liquidity in them is probably saving the chain at this point. You will have very pro Monero people give long technical arguments as to why monero’s protocol is different than TC, and TC was essentially mixing your money with dirty money. They are completely correct, however expecting the regulators to care about those technicalities is a bold stance IMO. Just because they can’t stop it, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t try banning it. If Monero is used for atomic swapping large amounts of stolen exchange/LP/“dirty” funds, I’d bet the regulations will start coming

yebyen

Are you sure they weren't talking about Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin *futures* as derivatives, which isn't really a statement relative to the claim of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin *deliveries* as securities or commodities. It's the C*F*TC, which is responsible for regulating *futures* is it not? If you think that Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and friends has found some sweet spot where the token itself is not governable by the SEC and derivatives are not governable by the CFTC, then I have bad news for you. But also good news. None of this impacts whether or not you can use them directly, as a consumer. You do not need a perpetual or quarterly futures exchange market in order to trade and use bitcoin, or any of its nearby neighbors, with any other person. It is possible for the token to be a security, and for the derivative (future/perpetual) to be a derivative. Their status as a commodity does not really have any impact on the SEC's claims that (for example) Coinbase lending and staking products that are built on Bitcoin, Ethereum might be securities as they are shaped. This also could be an entirely separate issue from whether a decentralized staking protocol like STX, Algo, Uniswap etc. changes the story. (If there is no "central issuer" or "common enterprise" then how can it be a security? Well, Coinbase's offering has both of these...)

box-bolt

If it walks and talks like random gibberish data, how could it possibility be illegal? No evidence, no crime. The illegal part would be throwing TC developers in prison without facing a jury of 12 ordinary peers.

joyfulIcecream60843

Agreed. We will catch up and prosper. The transparency from the founder, '3TC' has been what got my attention. I've never had the opportunity to invest in a token where the founder was KYC verified and I'm excited about the opportunity here; As it makes all the difference in the 'trust factor' and lowers your risk.

imabritcat

Jobs are for humans. It's all a big game. You could replace many people with a well crafted excel spreadsheet, but you forgot about the 'critical' TC1s, XYZs, or this way of doing things.. whatever contrivance that exists in a company's lore. In the end I only trust my google home device to find my phone. And I know the majority of my job is making bosses feel comfortable rather than being correct.

Korlithiel

Thanks much TC. Sounds a bit like how I got into Coin Hunt World, to do something that I enjoyed and make something back. GU sounds solid if you can invest the time consistently and without distractions, or at least once a distraction comes along you can finish the match and move onto it.

Allions1

>TC at 10M$ would mean an increase of 39900% of the price. If BTC goes up like that and MOONs follow the same pattern, one single MOON would be at least 79,90$ worth. BTC at 10M$ would mean an increase of 39900% of the price. How this can be considered legit by an "analyst"?

Coindiggs

The ecosystem he has created is the ponzi machine. Since he had "sacrifices" for pulsechain and pulseX that would be the new investors and HEX would be old investors in this. He tried to siphon pulseX sacrifice money (new money) through tornado cash (why use TC if he didnt already know this was ponzinomics) and added the money into the HEX liquidity for old investors to cash out of HEX. He also sacrificed billions of his own HEX to pulseX to make a tax write off for sacrifice "charity" and will most likely be adding that into LPs on the PulseX DEX and in that way keep making money of users while still owning the HEX he just used for a tax write off to generate rewards from staking in LPs. He just tumbles his money around and around and around making more and more while his cultist followers just swallows it all up and thinking he is actually trying to help them and "save them". He props up the HEX holder counts to make the coin look more attractive, check the holders and you will see theres like 9 million wallets holding exactly 100 hex each. Do i need to keep going? HEX is the biggest scam and ponzi in the crypto space right now. The founder is a massive serial liar, doesnt get any worse then this.