I philosophically disagree that something known to be used for a crime, or known to make crimes easier, ipso facto means that thing should be banned. I see a lot of benefits to society with privacy solutions like Tornado Cash. I also like paper cash, gold coins, and guns for that matter, all of which have been documented to be used in crimes and all of which are legal.
I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.
We are not in meaningful disagreement about these things: the question is not whether the government is justified in banning anything that can be used to do crime (which is everything), but whether the government is justified in banning something that have an efficient cause in crime. That's what Tornado Cash is, and no amount of hemming and hawing around other potential uses meaningfully changes this.
Correct - we are debating the merits and demerits of Tornado Cash for society. My position is it’s helpful and all negatives already have laws that solve them.
Furthermore once the software is no longer gray, it could be embedded via API in many other entities to enable privacy, just as encryption was once taboo and now is everywhere. It’s only the gray nature of this privacy solution that prevents its normalization.
The discussion you are participating in does not make any philosophical claims, but just states how the law works. A libertarian disagreeing with this on a philosophical is not just obvious, it's also uninteresting.
I linked to several legal arguments as to why the person I’m speaking to is wrong. They are not a lawyer as their blog states. And my philosophical arguments go to the heart of the law, which is how much authority Treasury claims they have vs. what their actual authority is as written.
I don’t even know what your comment adds to the discussion, it is very boring and also uninteresting and perhaps you should exit this thread before you degrade it further.
I believe the law requires presumption of innocence. We shall see what the judge says. I think your arguments are unconvincing and actually, when analyzed, see them as dangerous and given to statist authoritarian tendencies.