#1

A thought for the future I would like to share with you. This is not relevant as of now as there are many other priorities to discuss. Furthermore I do not necessarily endorse this idea, but would like to share nevertheless as an intellectual divertissement.

We all know regulators will eventually come after TC. As a result, CEX and CEDEX will strive to implement satisfying anti TC measures, first of all banning account whose addresses appears being tainted with TC money.

Imagine TC establishing a “Spray and Pray” contract… gradually accruing ETH… and every now and then exploding and sending dust to millions of clean ETH addresses (e.g. every single clean ETH address which interacted with a specificic trending protocol in the last month).
This cyberviral, promiscuous entity would eventually making it almost impossible to discern clean VS non-clean addresses.
Perhaps a monstrosity, perhaps within the original Vision - possibly both.

5 Likes
New Tornado.cash pools are here! DAI, cDAI and WBTC
#2

Interesting concept for sure. I would definitely support a DAO proposal with this narrative.

1 Like
#3

This is such an out of the box idea I absolutely love it!

How can we make sure no clear filter could be applied for regulators to discern what is spray vs what is genuine?

1 Like
#4

Ideas worth practicing in the future! I like this.

#5

@dmcxx
Wonderful…

@feel_diss
Thank you.

@ethdev
One important question to ponder about, to which a simple temporally confined answer is not possible as we would enter the realm of standard cat-and-mouse dynamics; as of now for instance most CEX/CEDEX would have a hard time even trying to screen out false positives with single/double digit of “dirty” WEI; the more their measures evolve either in brute and smart terms, the more the entity would continuously evolve in a way to mimick natural contract interaction behaviour to the point of making it constantly impractical to discern contamination. For instance, I could even imagine at some stage in the future the contract spraying larger amounts of ETH (0.1; 1) on extremely rare circumstances to some lucky(?) ones to the point users would have no way to demonstrate their involvement with TC or lackthereof.

#6

Great points

Yeah, the endgame here would be to eventually create a totally concealed way to initialized sprays. Because even if we start blasting out 0.1 denominations to random addresses, we still need a way to obfuscate the governance around determining the recipients of the 0.1 denominations. Else the governance could be used as the filter

Perhaps a Token Curated Registry could be established and managed by TORN holders to begin listing high profile accounts to spray? And anyone who sprays one of those addresses on their own can redeem some newly issued TORN as a reward. Or at the very least some AP. That way governance wouldn’t even have to be directly involved

2 Likes
#7

Awesome idea, definitely has merit. Possibly the methodology around the spray would also have to vary (randomize amount, frequency etc) so it’s difficult if not impossible to discern from “regular” activity.

1 Like
#8

@alyc Thank you and welcome to the forum. I agree on non-predictable spray intensity and intervals being key.

@ethdev You are totally right about the importance of obfuscating the governance behind the mechanism and I like the idea of a Token Curated Registry to get users spontaneously Ξ0.1 sniper shot targets to collect either TORN or AP rewards. Besides, we could almost see some gameification potential in this for the sake of riding current trends - but I digress.
My idea is to get the main contract to act in waves as much as possible irregular and unpredictable, i.e. determined by static and dynamic variables + a random element.
Governance minimized to select trending protocols (perhaps this could be even automated to chose protocols as candidates as long as conditions such as set minimum TVL and traffic are respected). Whereas aspects like: which protocol to attack; when to release next spray; how many WEI to send; to which addresses - could all be determined by semi-random variables combined with non-predictable data (e.g. specific times at which a “pray” function is called by users).
Moving towards a hypothetic end of the continuum where every active eth address has traces of TC Ξ, I believe that realistically most exchanges would have a hard time to actively counter our “spray and pray” contract. Not even sure about the feasability on their end of marking as false positives those addresses containing above specific thresholds of TC Ξ and/or within certain recency of interaction with the TC smart contract on an semi-/automated basis.

I would like to share that this idea, alongside enough dishinibition to be willing to share it, came to me following a strong experience using psychaedelic mushrooms.