Someone Is Trolling Celebs by Sending ETH From Tornado Cash (coindesk.com) 30
An anonymous user sent a slew of Tornado Cash transactions to high-profile Ethereum addresses on Tuesday in what appears to be a troll implicating them in a potential regulatory mess. From a report: Affected wallets include those controlled by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, TV host Jimmy Fallon, clothing brand Puma and a wallet created for donations to Ukraine, according to Etherscan. Prominent crypto figures such as artist Beeple and more mainstream celebrities such as comedian Dave Chappelle received ether (ETH).
Only fair (Score:5, Insightful)
In a sane world, financial regulators around the world would've sent all cryptocurrency users through the auditing wringer around 2015 or so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a big reason the IRS needs 87k more employees.
I'm not too firm with English idioms (Score:2)
But is that what's called "adding insult to injury"?
Re: (Score:3)
It's telling the regulators that they can't stop the little people without stomping the pretty people too. In a two-tiered court system the pretty people are used to getting a fair shake.
It's not celebrities who are getting trolled.
If it is on the ledger... (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
These celebs are unlikely to get any attention beyond a letter demanding the 0.1 ETH, if that.
Re: (Score:2)
0.1 sounds like VLANs.
you could also go with 0:1 for ip alias
not sure if demanding an alias works. as long as you have root, you can get it yourself.
Transaction initiation? (Score:2)
Can you just really throw money/coin/whatever into somebody else's wallet without their participation? That seems dodgy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how they all work, once someone else has your wallet address (and most buttcoin enthusiasts publish theirs) they can send you money freely any time. Many traditional online banking/money transfer systems work the same way in that regard, actually...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure. You can do the same thing with a wire transfer; all you need is the person's name, account number, and the bank's routing number. You could easily transfer a large sum into someone's account and get them into hot water trying to explain it to the authorities.
Back in the day you also could do money deposits into someone else's account at any branch of their bank (as long as you knew their name and account number), but now most banks will not let you.
Re: (Score:2)
What blows me away is I've never heard of this type of action before. Implication through involuntary receipt of ill gotten games... seems like a really great way to muddy the waters.
How is this not more prevalent in the traditional system?
Re:Transaction initiation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there are actual laws and rules around it, and some of the punishments are highly unpleasant.
As opposed to "crypto" which is a complete Wild West.
Re: (Score:2)
Implication through involuntary receipt of ill gotten games... seems like a really great way to muddy the waters.
The recipient is not required to accept what's spent to them -- the next time that wallet makes a transaction, they could technically enter a spend of that output to an Invalid address, basically destroying the unwanted coins they received.
I suppose they could also quarantine that output by spending it to a designated wallet.. Although it is unlikely that existing wallet software is des
Re: Transaction initiation? (Score:2)
Sending to an invalid address probably isn't great. You can't really prove that it's not valid and that someone doesn't have access. I supposed you could try to make it more obviously invalid by using some variation of the DEADBEEF address, but it would always be impossible to absolutely prove it's invalid
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really prove that it's not valid and that someone doesn't have access.
Eh? You send back to the null address "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000", also the genesis address for the Ethereum network - that's good enough that it is considered a proof of burn..
The chance someone found a public key that keccak-256 hashes to all zeros and its matching private key is so remote it's essentially outside the realm of possibility.
Re: (Score:1)
they could technically enter a spend of that output to an Invalid address, basically destroying the unwanted coins they received.
Ethereum uses an account based approach to tracking coins, not the UTXO (unspent transaction output) method like bitcoin uses. So any amount taints the pot.
Even if you then burn an equal amount, your address still shows you received something from Tornado, instantly raising red flags.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you then burn an equal amount, your address still shows you received something from Tornado, instantly raising red flags.
Ah well, RIP. It looks like we need a "Solution" from the regulators causing this issue for a recipient of unwanted tainted coins to "turn in the tainted amount" and escape.
Re: (Score:3)
There's not usually a lot of security for *deposits* into accounts, since most are more worried about money coming out rather than in...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Crypto isn't untraceable. Quite the opposite. Actually. Literally completely the opposite.
easy to stop it (Score:2)
just ifconfig it down.
(do I have to do ALL the thinking around here?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
kill -WHOOSH $PARENT
Anyone ever see Fallon's awkward NFT sales pitch? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Does it just auto accept it? (Score:2)
How does sending crypto work then? If you send some of whatever coin, do the wallets just accept it and their is no option to give the wallets owner a choice?
Same as Paypal (Score:2)
Yes, the same as you can send a payment to anyone else's Paypal account. You just need the associated address.