> Indeed, when someone has a property interest, he or she typically has the “rights of possession and control.” And “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property” is “the right to exclude others.”

> The immutable smart contracts at issue in this appeal are not property because they are not capable of being owned. More than one thousand volunteers participated in a “trusted setup ceremony” to “irrevocably remov[e] the option for anyone to update, remove, or otherwise control those lines of code.” And as a result, no one can “exclude” anyone from using the Tornado Cash pool smart contracts.

Immutability is what makes this whole thing work for Tornado. The ruling is basically a whole explanation of why an immutable smart contract isn't property, isn't a service, isn't a patent, it isn't anything Treasury can touch. In fact, it's not even a "contract" (no counterparty).

But the mutable aspect of Tornado -- the optional gas fee anonymization middlemen, who are registered via a mutable smart contract -- they're still in the rough. Which makes the rally in the TORN coin those middlemen get paid in all the weirder.

It seems pretty clear to me that Treasury can sanction all of those Tornado relayers, because relayers have control over their actions; their participation happens through a mutable smart contract, and they can stop at any time.

Between recent sanctions and protectionist policies springing up, I wonder if there's more merit to crypto being a viable way to move large amounts of money outside the traditional financial system. Gold prices spent the 90's in decline, arguably as a peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and economic liberalization.

Maybe crypto is now a bet that there will be more need to facilitate gray market transactions as trade gets harder.

> The court found the contracts aren't property because no one can control or change the application's code any longer. In fact, the creators took pains to make sure of that.

Hmmm... Hunting for analogies, perhaps it's like an event where people arrive at the park, everybody puts a fixed $20 in their own opaque anonymous box, and everyone blindly shuffles boxes before leaving with (probably) someone else's box, thus cross-shuffling their money/coins.

Sure, the $20 before and after is property, but the event itself isn't really own-able in the same way.

Glad that we will continue to live in a country where you only get rights if you can afford to construct an absurd business that abuses poorly thought out pedantry just to do the same thing that is explicitly illegal but "with computers so it's different".

What this ruling does mean though is that the government can't prosecute a US person for using TC.

You should, but not becuse of what you said but because it's selective application of the Law; for example this is still being upheld [0] as we speak and clearly innocent people are having their lives ruined for using software on something that only until recently wasn't even considered money by the IRS/FINRA et al.

What you should feel uncomfortable with is the weight of a YC backed crypto exchange, ran by one of the most despised members of the community, being able to skirt around the legal system while others who do not have the political or business clout are held to a different standard in what was deemed 'overstepping' it's powers:

> U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling, so they can't be blocked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control "overstepped its congressionally defined authority" when it did so.

PS: Armstrong represents the most reprehensible aspects of the Bitcoin community, but sadly due to a myriad of reasons (connections to banking and VC world being the top of that list) is now a custodial service for most of the non-self custody clients in this space. I cannot emphasize what a terrible outcome this is, and can only hope some good (like Samurai getting let go) comes from this travesty.