Crypto-Mixing Service Tornado Cash Code Is Back On GitHub

Code repositories for the Ethereum-based mixer Tornado Cash were relisted on GitHub on Thursday. CoinDesk reports: The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets (OFAC) banned Americans last month from using Tornado Cash, a decentralized privacy service that mixes cryptocurrencies together to obfuscate the original address. The mixer was blacklisted and designated under the Specially Designated National list because the North Korean hacking group Lazarus had used it in the past.

GitHub is a centralized internet hosting service for software development often used by Ethereum developers. Within hours of the OFAC announcement, GitHub, along with other platforms, removed Tornado Cash from their sites in order to comply with the new U.S. regulation. Ethereum developers -- believing that computer code is protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- have called for platforms that host the Tornado Cash code to reverse their bans. In particular, Ethereum core developer Preston Van Loon asked for GitHub to relist the mixer's code on Sept. 13. Further reading: Treasury Says Sanctions On Tornado Cash Don't Stop People From Sharing Code

If code is speech...

[AmazingRuss]

... so is every other artifact created by humans.

Re:

[ttspttsp]

I would say yes, if the artifact in question came from creative expression by a human. And, in those cases the US government is not allowed to restrict nor coerce access to the artifact by it's constitution.

Re: If code is speech...

[St.Creed]

Enjoy my homemade pipe bomb. It expresses my dissatisfaction with your POV. But it's free speech, right?

Re:

[ttspttsp]

To me (and I believe the US court system), a pipe bomb falls under the "clear and present danger" [wikipedia.org] exception to the 1st amendment (there are no absolutes in social systems). To continue on this tangent, I don't believe that a book that describes how to make a pipe bomb is allowed to be censored by the US government.

Do they really have to explain what github is?

[1s44c]

We know already.

But nuking the code on github doesn't delete checked out copies, each of which has full version history and could easily be uploaded to any other git provider, public or private.

Re:

[blackomegax]

Can't stop the signal, mal.

The code is not the problem

[gweihir]

Using it for this specific purpose is. Also, doing any kind of business with the "Tornado Cash" money laundering service may be a really bad idea.

Re:

[diffract]

>The code is not the problem
Then why was it taken down?

Re:

[gweihir]

Virtue signalling?

A Nonsense Argument

[GameboyRMH]

Citing the 1st Amendment as a reason for GitHub to have to host Tornado Cash code is as nonsensical as citing it as a reason to keep fascist hate speech on Facebook, or a well-argued fact-based criticism of Trump on Truth Social. GitHub is not a part of the US government and is free to moderate content as it sees fit.

Re:A Nonsense Argument

[ttspttsp]

Yes, but what if it was the US government that 'requested' (demanded) that the repository be removed? There is such a thing as a US government order where the recipient is disallowed (by court gag order) to disclose it publicly.

But code was already said to be speech...

[rjr162]

Anyone remember reading /. back in 1998-2000ish with the DeCSS and the legality questions around it?
It was determined the uncompiled source code was a former of speech and was protected, and is one reason Teeshirts were printed up with the DeCSS code on them (among other things like hosting the source code was not a copywrite violation deal as the code it's self was speech.
Now I don't know what all might have impacted or changed that train of thought legally since then (DMCA? Etc), but at least at one point

Code is not speech

[rsilvergun]

Anymore than a hammer is speech. Code is a tool used to accomplish a specific goal. It does not by itself express any ideas.

A decentralized privacy service? Is that what the kids can money laundering nowadays? Bottom line they're hiding behind privacy to break laws that exist for very good reasons. I'm old enough to remember Iran contra. We don't need to be making it easier to launder money. There are actually a plethora of terrible things that will result from that.

As for anyone who will inevitably

Re:

[gweihir]

It is in no way that simple. You can even have things that are both valid, working assembler code and English language text:
https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~sam/cc... [jhu.edu]

Now in this research, no effort was really made to make that meaningful text, but that could be done as well. At that point whether it is code or speech depends not on the object itself, but on its use. Pretty much the same as a kitchen knife can be a useful tool or a murder weapon. What it is depends on the use. Mere possession is impossible to crimina

Re:

[real_nickname]

It is in no way that simple. You can even have things that are both valid, working assembler code and English language text:

You can make it simpler. Any file is just a number, you can't forbid numbers. Still I think it's a good thing to forbid some files. Concerning code, I see no reason to forbid it. Giving access to "evil" code allows more people to fight it, it's a win and usually makes it obsolete.

Re:

[Immerman]

Nothing about freedom of speech requires that the speech be in English language text (heck, text is only a more limited but enduring approximation of speech) - it could be in Spanish, Chinese, or an artificial language like Esperanto or C++. It's all still speech.

Generally speaking "freedom of speech" can be more accurately understood as "freedom to spread information", since it's the information, not the sounds, that oppressive governments like to restrict to make you easy to control.

There are some except

Re:

[Immerman]

No, *software* is a tool to accomplish a specific goal.

Code is the "blueprints" for that software as expressed in an artificial language.

Here's a good sanity check as to whether something is speech: Can you transmit it using only the spoken word as a medium? If it can, then it's definitely speech, changing the medium shouldn't make a difference.

Sure, copying the code base for any decently-sized piece of software via dictation would be an error-prone pain in the ass, but it's perfectly possible. In fact I

There's no "because" there.

[gavron]

[quote]The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets (OFAC) banned Americans last month... [/quote]

OFAC doesn't have that authority. https://home.treasury.gov/poli... [treasury.gov]
Us CItizens (and residents) don't need the US Government's permission as to which programs we can run.

[quote] ... from using Tornado Cash, a decentralized privacy service that mixes cryptocurrencies together to obfuscate the original address. The mixer was blacklisted and designated under the Specially Designated National list ... [/

Re:

[Immerman]

> It's like what a three year old say.
And yet still more soundly reasoned than the stated rational a lot of legally binding legislation.

The judge wouldn't lock you up for using software that some people she doesn't like uses. HOWEVER - appropriate authorities could very well ban that software just because they don't like the color, and the judge would then lock you up for breaking the law. The motivation behind the law is none of their business - if you want the law changed, have your legislators do so

Call it what it is: Money laundering

[Immerman]

Why to "journalists" etc. insist on repeating the ridiculous term "mixing" rather than the much older and more informative term "money laundering"?

People don't like money laundering

[wakeboarder]

Because when criminals steal money, they like to launder it. This makes those who lost money whine and scream to the powers that be to do something about it, and believe me, they'll do something about it. And that usually comes in the form of regulation. Is that what you want? More regulation?