/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50970821
the bloated mutant husk that is government ambles limpingly toward its target. it is always inefficient, and its inefficiency is proportionate in degree to which it is or is not familiar with its adversary. they can kill a bus full of kids in the Hindu Kush in under ten minutes, but tackling grotesque unoptimized ad hoc applications takes new hirelings fresh out of indoctrination college. in time they will come for bisq, and by that time, everyone will be on to something else.

this is why this whole gov attempt is doomed to fail

They have to keep updating list after list
meanwhile we can just make new smart contracts, copies, slight alterations, etc

Any "censored" address can just run its own node, make a smart contract that redirects money put into it to a new clean address for obfuscation

They could attempt censorship at the protocol level but even this is doomed to fail, because every new mixer contract would have to be added to the list and to intervene at protocol level you have to code it as an exception that uses gas. Otherwise you could DoS attack with long, gas-consuming txs that end in a banned address and no gas would be consumed, it needs to be an exception for that

THis was why the DAO hack required a hard fork and not a soft fork
https://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/28/ethereum-soft-fork-dos-vector/

So every new mixer SC would require a protocol overhaul to code the increasing list of banned addresses as exceptions. Can't be done, it would destroy ETH.

That's what all these folks talking about forks aren't getting. There will be no choice of gov compliant fork vs free. ETH will be free or it will be destroyed. There is no inbetween.

If Coinbase runs compliant nodes those nodes well get DDoS'd and be offline half the time

>>50970935
in fact another attack vector would be attacking the OFAC list itself since it will need to be regularly updated.
They'd have to run an OFAC Chainlink oracle to begin with. And even then the protocol itself would need to be updated based on such an oracle to throw exceptions, reducing its security entirely to the security of Chainlink

I am not shilling Chainlink here, just explaining that ETH cannot be made compliant without being destroyed entirely.

>>50970961
It's okay, you can shill chainlink, I don't mind. Go right ahead. I only understood about 30% of what you said but it sounded nice
>>50970897
Very creatively written, this. A joy to read. Borderline distinction.

>>50971088
read the link I posted and you will understand more

>>50970935
>>50970961
>tldr I don't know anything about it but buy Chainlink (LINK) because no one else is buying my Chainlink (LINK) and your question makes you appear gullible enough to believe what I'm saying about Chainlink (LINK)

>>50971371
>will not give a single argument refuting what I said
it's ok to admit you don't understand anon, investing is not for everyone

>>50970821

First of all, mixers aren't "illegal." Neither is what tornado cash did. It is just illegal to specifically use tornado cash.

Tornado was just the biggest target with the most money in it that I guess the treasury was really desperate to try and stop, even if the contracts are still functioning.

You could also just redeploy tornado cash at different addresses and it would be legal.

>>50971389
That was the argument. The rest of your post can be safely discarded in the trash bin

>>50971484
like I said, it's okay