> Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash)

This is just a disingenuous take.

Tornado Cash founder didn't get criminally convicted for "a genius way go use cryptography to send anonymous payments." He got convicted for operating a money-laundering service.

The fact that his service utilized "a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments" is entirely orthogonal to the actual crime he got in trouble for. He would have gotten convicted just the same regardless of the cryptography usage, because the actual crime here was operating a money-laundering service.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah, like I said, a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments. The cops call that money laundering. That isn't an orthogonal crime, it's a different name for the exact same thing.

▲

filoleg a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, and "manufacturing novel types of explosive devices, with evidence of them having been used in destructive acts of terror" is just a different name used by cops for "innovative applied chemistry". The criminal law must be truly just hating on the innovators in sciences.

	▲	inigyou a day ago \| parent [-]
		What you said is actually a name for "innovative applied chemistry, and then blowing up parliament with it". If I invented a new type of explosive and didn't blow up parliament, but the cops somehow found out, I'd go to jail. Edit: correction, you didn't even say I was the one who blew things up. You just said someone blew up things with my new explosives. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. If guns weren't already old technology, the government would hold Mr Smith & Mr Wesson accountable for every gun death.