There is an open question about whether publishing non custodial contract code on Ethereum counts as providing a service. If you post 10 lines of immutable code onto Ethereum, and some years later a user chooses to run this code on their machines for criminal behavior, should you be prosecuted?

This is known as “chilling effect” in a legal context.

Monero and TC are equal parts useful for non-criminals who are seeking privacy.

This is where the “privacy on the blockchain should be a basic right” argument comes in, and what the plaintiff appears to be arguing.

What percentage of activity in an E2EE chat application like Matrix is illicit? If a significant but minority percentage of its use is facilitating criminal discussion, should those open protocols also be sanctioned?

[1] https://dune.com/poma/tornado-cash_1

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/code-speech-and-tornad...

It would be like sanctioning the Matrix protocol and it’s code because it has facilitated terrorist communication. Obviously terrorists planning a bombing over Matrix protocol are engaging in criminal behavior, but this doesn’t mean the protocol itself is also a criminal entity.

Compare with E2EE Matrix protocol: it does not exist to facilitate criminal communication, but it does facilitate criminal communication.

TC is also different because it is an open source protocol, not a legal entity or group. You deposit funds into the protocol, and anybody in the network can help you withdraw them by relaying your transaction. It is a set of rules that any group of people can follow to allow for private transactions, and the same protocol can run on many blockchains.

Which one is it?

- privacy is a right, and people should be allowed to share knowledge privately

or,

- privacy is not a right, and people should only be allowed to share knowledge if that knowledge is not associated with "value"

As hardware accelerated and parallel ZK proving technology increases, the amount of users and applications built on this technology can also increase. This is the opposite of Proof of Work, where more efficient mining rigs and higher hash rates will not lead to more network throughput or activity.

> If someone built something that said "Launder your [256 bit integers] here" and it took in a bunch of [256 bit integers], and then [encrypted] it sans fees to hide where it came from... they'd say it was [256 bit integer] laundering and arrest the person.

When you compare this to encrypting 256 bit integers, text, or E2EE chat protocols, the shock is easier to understand. People should not be treated as a criminal for building Matrix E2EE protocol that enables privacy, they should not be treated as criminal for building Tornado Cash protocol that enables privacy.