this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
340 points (98.3% liked)

Privacy

31973 readers
223 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

He can write the code. He can release the source. Nothing is illegal until he takes currency.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And see, there's where the problem comes in. He never actually took the currency from the smart contract itself. In fact, it is still online and being used as of this day. And he is getting none of the currency just like he got none of the currency before. What they are going after him for is creating a front-end user interface to access the contract. I believe they did take a fee from that user interface since it made it simpler than interacting with the contract directly. The problem is that they are saying that by taking fees from that user interface, he is money laundering, but not everybody who used that user interface was using it for money laundering. A famous example is the creator of Ethereum used it to donate to Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

a screenshot of a text message conversation. The text messages are from an encrypted app conversation between Roman Semenov, the defendant, Roman Storm, and CC-1.

He's taking a fee in order to launder your money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Even had the front end website not been running, that money would have still been laundered. I heard an explanation of it earlier that was saying something to the effect of, imagine a door at the edge of a field. There is no walls, there is no nothing else, just a door at the edge of a field. Anybody can come into that field and use it whenever they wish. Putting a lock on the door will not keep people out of the field. They can just walk in wherever the door isn't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this would be better if the field was surrounded by a 1 foot moat, and there was a bridge.

It would take some amount of effort to step over the moat and not trip, vs just walking over the bridge.

The bridge has a small toll to help maintain it.

But bridge or no bridge you're getting into the field.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Lol, i like it