Tornado cash and others mixers

[joniboini]

What filter are you talking about?
Not one AML provider will work with a mixer, because it will show everyone that these providers have very little efficiency. Then after that, a criminal case will need to be opened against the AML provider And the mixer is not to blame for anything.

Well, anything really. Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too.

Yes US government keeps coming to sites who related to crypto and then seizing them and freezing their crypto holding at the end of the day they can sell it 

They always do that to criminal cases afaik. I don't think they will freeze people's assets blindly on exchanges, for example. Unless of course, they claim it was related to money laundering or other criminal cases. CMIIW.

[Zoomic]

What filter are you talking about?
Not one AML provider will work with a mixer, because it will show everyone that these providers have very little efficiency. Then after that, a criminal case will need to be opened against the AML provider And the mixer is not to blame for anything.

Well, anything really. Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too.

It's likely that no mixer will go such an extra miles to defend themselves when the government comes against them. Apart from the process being expensive as you noted, the mixing company may likely not have customers when people understand how far they go in order to set up their customers.
When you mentioned IP filter, I was thinking if it's the same mixers that makes provision to browse their sites privately with Tor incorporated?

Yes US government keeps coming to sites who related to crypto and then seizing them and freezing their crypto holding at the end of the day they can sell it 

They always do that to criminal cases afaik. I don't think they will freeze people's assets blindly on exchanges, for example. Unless of course, they claim it was related to money laundering or other criminal cases. CMIIW.

Well, since they have the power to do it, we cannot say that they haven't freezed an innocent person's account. As I always say, all are sinners in the eyes of the government. They might decide to resurrect your previous sins in order to implicate you presently.

[zasad@]

What filter are you talking about?
Not one AML provider will work with a mixer, because it will show everyone that these providers have very little efficiency. Then after that, a criminal case will need to be opened against the AML provider And the mixer is not to blame for anything.

Well, anything really. Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too.

Why then make such difficult decisions?
AML provider can independently provide cryptomixer services
AML provider is a very good business. Companies pay huge amounts of money to these services, but the AML provider is not legally held accountable unless they block criminal coins.

[joniboini]

When you mentioned IP filter, I was thinking if it's the same mixers that makes provision to browse their sites privately with Tor incorporated?

I'm not sure I understood your question correctly, but I was referring to clearnet IP filtering. Stuff like blocking visits from countries or VPN IPs and so on. I do know one or two mixers that do this on their clearnet website but most people can still use ToR to access their services. So yeah, some mixers do recommend users to use ToR and apply IP filtering on their clearnet website.

Well, since they have the power to do it, we cannot say that they haven't freezed an innocent person's account. As I always say, all are sinners in the eyes of the government. They might decide to resurrect your previous sins in order to implicate you presently.

I guess that's true. At the very least you can opt not to use any centralized service if you want to avoid them.

[LoyceV]

I do not have the impression that the authorities are so eager to sanction "official" banks that launder money from illicit activities

They just get a fine and move on. In The Netherlands, banks process €16 billion criminal money per year. ING paid a €775 million fine 5 years ago, ABN AMRO €480 million 2 years ago. The Dutch government still owns 56.3% of the latter. How ironic is that?

Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too.

This is literally what CoinJoin wallet Wasabi did. See Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread.

[zasad@]

I do not have the impression that the authorities are so eager to sanction "official" banks that launder money from illicit activities

They just get a fine and move on. In The Netherlands, banks process €16 billion criminal money per year. ING paid a €775 million fine 5 years ago, ABN AMRO €480 million 2 years ago. The Dutch government still owns 56.3% of the latter. How ironic is that?

Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too.

This is literally what CoinJoin wallet Wasabi did. See Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread.

Zo had een klant van ABN AMRO, die de laagste risicoclassificatie had gekregen, voor 49 van zijn vennootschappen tussen 2014 en 2018 in totaal 192 bankrekeningen geopend bij ABN AMRO. Deze rekeningen waren grotendeels inactief. Deze klant pleegde fiscale fraude waardoor hij bijna 200.000 euro van de Belastingdienst ontving op de zakelijke rekeningen. Het geld werd door de klant na overboekingen naar zijn privérekeningen bij ABN AMRO grotendeels uitgegeven of contant opgenomen. De risicoclassificatie bleef laag ondanks verschillende signalen en twijfels die er binnen ABN AMRO waren over deze klant. De bank maakte pas melding van ongebruikelijke transacties bij de FIU na aanvang van het strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar deze klant.

I remember these fraud schemes in Russia, when several firms were opened for one person in each region, region and various tax and other fraud schemes were turned. There was no single centralized data base for all regions, subjects, regions of the country, and there were more than 80 of these subjects. I do not remember that banks were responsible for this.

[zasad@]

Privacy Takes Center Stage in Closing Arguments at Tornado Cash Developer Roman Storm's Trial
U.S. prosecutors argued that Tornado Cash’s emphasis on privacy wasn’t about protecting ordinary users, but about making “bags of money.”
https://decrypt.co/332855/closing-arguments-tornado-cash-roman-storm-trial

"SEC Commissioner Esther Peirce has sided with open-source privacy software developers. The commissioner believes that developers should not be held accountable for the actions of users."
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-blockchain-conference-080425

___
The situation is really interesting. Trump wants to make America the capital of the crypto world, but at the same time the court wants to give 40 years in prison to the developer of a decentralized protocol because the service was used by criminals. It's time to decide what you want.

[LoyceV]

U.S. prosecutors argued that Tornado Cash’s emphasis on privacy wasn’t about protecting ordinary users, but about making “bags of money.”

I came to this conclusion earlier: we can't have good, trusted privacy solutions anymore, because they'll be abused by criminals and government will go after the service.

[zasad@]

U.S. prosecutors argued that Tornado Cash’s emphasis on privacy wasn’t about protecting ordinary users, but about making “bags of money.”

I came to this conclusion earlier: we can't have good, trusted privacy solutions anymore, because they'll be abused by criminals and government will go after the service.

If we talk specifically about Tornado Cash, then I disagree. No one can block a smart contract, even token issuers cannot block their tokens in a smart contract.
The Tornado Cash website is blocked, the web version is unavailable, but the smart contract continues to work.
In addition, similar contracts work fine in other EVM ecosystems and no one blocks them