[HN Gopher] My ETH Wallet is wrongly sanctioned
___________________________________________________________________
My ETH Wallet is wrongly sanctioned
Author : yunfangjuan
Score : 42 points
Date : 2022-08-17 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (depression2022.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (depression2022.substack.com)
| Imnimo wrote:
| > Interestingly, in the end I was able to withdraw all my funds
| from AAVE through direct contract calls as illustrated above
|
| Will this just result in the next wallet being tainted, and so
| on? I guess maybe you can try to cash out the crypto before
| whoever you're selling to catches on?
| yunfangjuan wrote:
| I did do a swap using 1inch afterwards and it works
| OK.Ultimately I want to be removed from the sanction list
| because I did nothing wrong.
| verdverm wrote:
| The legal question could be "did providing liquidity to the
| service, by your participation, aid and abet sanctioned
| entities?"
|
| How do you know that you did not transact with a sanctioned
| entity? (and by proxy did do something wrong)
| hamiltonians wrote:
| Part of the blame goes to etherscan for trying to be a
| gatekeeper. In 2016 it used to just be a transaction explorer,
| now it,s trying to determine what is legal or not.
| 91edec wrote:
| Monero
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Can be sanctioned just like Tornado Cash
| smt88 wrote:
| This is impossible. DeFi is secure, decentralized, and
| uncensorable. You can't be sanctioned in DeFi!
|
| /s obviously
| sneed-oil wrote:
| It looks like it is
|
| > Interestingly, in the end I was able to withdraw all my funds
| from AAVE through direct contract calls as illustrated above.
| So basically the web UI is blocked but people can still use
| AAVE by sending transactions to the blockchains directly.
| hamiltonians wrote:
| i think only usdt and usdc have the ability to freeze funds
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Crypto people want to "be their own bank" without the
| consequences of being their own bank.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| It looks like they can be
|
| > Interestingly, in the end I was able to withdraw all my funds
| from AAVE through direct contract calls as illustrated above.
| So basically the web UI is blocked but people can still use
| AAVE by sending transactions to the blockchains directly.
|
| The only thing that was censoring his transactions was the
| website, which is centralized by design.
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| Basically, the "sanction preventions" Aave is instituting are
| for show only, in hopes they fool the regulators. They'll
| annoy and disturb the casual crypto trader but will do
| nothing to stop the big criminals from money laundering. I
| hope the developers of these defi lending protocols get hit
| with the criminal charges next.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| > I hope the developers of these defi lending protocols get
| hit with the criminal charges next.
|
| It's pretty crazy how all the arguments for freedom of
| speech (and software) go out the window for many people
| whenever cryptocurrency comes up.
| verdverm wrote:
| It's pretty crazy how some people think all speech is
| protected or that running software is somehow protected
| by the same laws that protect speech.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Do you also believe artists should be punished if their
| works of art are used to launder money?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| When the "artists" have been openly and shamelessly
| stating, since around 2009, that the entire purpose of
| their "art" is to aid in laundering money and other
| crimes? Yes, absolutely.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Did the AAVE developers say that?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| If they're smart, they wouldn't admit to it publicly. But
| do you not remember the early history of Bitcoin, and the
| Silk Road? Nothing's changed since then, except some
| people got arrested and some haven't yet.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| What's wrong with buying and selling drugs?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| I really don't think you want to continue the discussion
| in the direction of "what's wrong crime A and crime B",
| that'll get off the rails very quickly.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Depending on the drug and the country it might not even
| be a crime
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > openly and shamelessly stating, since around 2009, that
| the entire purpose of their "art" is to aid in laundering
| money and other crimes?
|
| Becomes
|
| > If they're smart, they wouldn't admit to it publicly.
|
| Let me guess. Your favourite castle is motte and bailey?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| >Your favourite castle is motte and bailey?
|
| Less of this, please. Obviously, not everyone into crypto
| and defi says those exact words. But there are enough
| saying that type of thing, where I think it's wrong of
| anyone involved with this to feign ignorance. They know
| what they're getting into.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Well yeah if the art is explicitly designed to make money
| laundering easy, of course!
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Is AAVE explicitly designed to facilitate money
| laundering?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| By association, yes. All cryptocurrency and "defi"
| ostensibly has that goal. What is it exactly you think
| they're trying to "decentralize"?
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Transactions and storage of money. You could also argue
| that artists who sell their artworks for huge sums of
| money are associating themselves to money laundering.
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| Transactions and storage of money are already
| decentralized, through the traditional finance system
| that connects at least thousands of banks and payment
| processors and other financial institutions. So it can't
| be that.
|
| >You could also argue that artists who sell their
| artworks for huge sums of money are associating
| themselves to money laundering.
|
| Yes, that's why transactions for those huge sums are
| subject to AML laws.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| > Transactions and storage of money are already
| decentralized, through the traditional finance system
|
| That's not the case for every country on the planet
|
| > Yes, that's why transactions for those huge sums are
| subject to AML laws.
|
| And how do those prevent rich person A from paying rich
| person B (by buying a painting owned by B for an inflated
| price) for some illegal service?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| >That's not the case for every country on the planet
|
| It's not helping there either. Countries where the
| economy is strictly controlled by the government, like
| North Korea, are mainly using crypto and defi to
| centralize even more. Their government can use defi to
| steal from other countries with impunity, evading
| international laws while continuing to oppress their own
| citizens and disallowing them from using the internet.
|
| >And how do those prevent rich person A from paying rich
| person B (by buying a painting owned by B for an inflated
| price) for some illegal service?
|
| If it were done through a bank (or a law-abiding crypto
| exchange) they would be required to keep a log of the
| transaction and the legal identities of the participants,
| as well as a log of where the money came from and where
| it's going. The idea is, if buying the painting is just
| one of the steps to "clean" the money, they'll be able to
| trace it back to when the money was dirty.
| TylerE wrote:
| "Code as law" isn't so great, is it?
| cassonmars wrote:
| Considering they could interact directly with the contract with
| no problem, that aspect worked out great.
| verdverm wrote:
| The ramifications might not be so great, code is still not
| law
| deegles wrote:
| The big question is whether validators who process sanctioned
| contract transactions on chain are liable. I would say they are,
| since in theory they can choose which transactions to include. If
| I were a US based miner I'd be looking into it. (not that I agree
| but it seems the trend is more enforcement, not less, over time)
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| I thought the De in DeFi was to avoid the possibility of being
| subject to an "authority". Hence the cute acronym.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| The author of the article did avoid being (sort of) subject to
| government sanctions
| verdverm wrote:
| Being able to make a transaction does not mean you are not
| subject to them, just that you found a workaround and
| probably earned yourself a spot on a list. They can still
| take your freedom
| mmh0000 wrote:
| I have nothing positive to say about this article.
|
| I giggled a little at reading it... A dude with way more money
| than brains is mad that "decenteralized finance" is
| decenteralized and can do whatever they want?
|
| The guy then admits to losing a quarter of a million; you'd think
| that'd be enough of a penalty for him to realize that maybe he
| should take his remaining money out, but nope.
|
| Gee. Who could've imangined that there's logical reasons for most
| financial regulations?
| sneed-oil wrote:
| Did you read the article? His transactions went through in the
| end, just not through the website
| WheatM wrote:
| [deleted]
| xtracto wrote:
| This reads entitled and aggressive.
|
| There are lots of people with a lot of money in the old banking
| system who are not tech savvy. They are routinely defrauded and
| affected by 3rd party fraud. Still, it doesn't warrant labeling
| them as "having more money than brains".
|
| In the case of the article, this is someone who had some money
| in a centralized exchange (AAVE) which was hacked by a bad
| actor, and then the breadcrumbs were traced to the sanctioned
| TornadoCash accounts.
|
| Victim shaming is wrong.
| nradov wrote:
| Anyone who put money into an obvious scam isn't a victim.
| xtracto wrote:
| My dad just sent the money form his account on his bank
| after some scammer called him (saying that he was a bank
| officer) and convinced him that his bank account was
| hacked, and he needed to move his money to _another_
| account in a _different_ bank. Needless to say, it was all
| a scam.
|
| Hearing and reading it looks pretty obvious... I do think
| he is a victim.
| hamiltonians wrote:
| at the rate crypto is falling he will not have so much money
| for long.
| throwawa3495 wrote:
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Ignoring all the obvious jokes here about banking without
| regulations and throwing good money after bad, I'm interested in
| the technical aspect of such bans and had some trouble finding
| resources. The author says "blocked by DeFi protocols such as
| AAVE and Uniswap." What does this actually mean? I found
| Uniswap's FAQ on this (
| https://help.uniswap.org/en/articles/6149816-address-screeni...
| ), but I'm not sure what it means to be a blocked address. Is it
| just that certain companies won't execute transactions directly
| with those addresses? Is the author somehow prevented from
| trading their ETH?
| yunfangjuan wrote:
| It's the UI being blocked so far. My understanding is that they
| use APIs from companies like https://www.trmlabs.com/ to decide
| if a wallet is _dirty_ but the algorithm right now is deeply
| flawed.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| The website blocked his transaction but he was still able to
| make them go through by using direct calls
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Hopefully some zealous prosecutor doesn't see his actions as
| defying sanctions.
| sneed-oil wrote:
| He never said he was sanctioned
| [deleted]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| True, but I could envision a scenario in which someone
| working for the government might interpret his actions as
| bypassing measures put in place to enforce a sanction.
| Regardless of how valid or invalid it was for his account
| to be blocked in the first place.
| verdverm wrote:
| Just wait until staking is merged, 67% of the pools are run
| by centralized companies wanting to do business in the US,
| and they start filtering at the transaction level, including
| or not in blocks based on these same dirty metrics.
|
| Lots of people who became paper rich are going to go the
| other direction just as fast.
| immibis wrote:
| If they filter transactions, ETH will become worthless,
| causing the relevant stakers to lose all their money since
| by definition they are the ones with the most money.
|
| Seems like the system will punish censorship as designed.
| verdverm wrote:
| They will be the majority though, enough to choose the
| history of the ledger, it's more that they won't allow
| other validators to join the network, who could
| invalidate their choices. Thus, the penalties will not be
| applied.
| stusmall wrote:
| "This class of tools designed for resisting government control
| doesn't work correctly after it has been sanctioned by a
| government" lol
| sneed-oil wrote:
| It seems like they do though if you read the whole article
| stusmall wrote:
| My joke was more pointing at the defi tools built on top of
| the blockchain rather than ethereum itself. Those broke.
| verdverm wrote:
| for now, the transaction filtering will work its way to the
| lowest levels in time
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-17 23:02 UTC)