sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root /(@pcaversaccio):probably only 5 people in the world care but on 2 may the tornado cash proposal 66 was accepted (i.e. on-chain executed), which means an update to the ui version (tornadocash[.]eth[.]limo and some other domains). today i finally found the time to carefully review the _two new commits_. i documented my findings in a gist. i would really appreciate an additional review from others, as i can always miss something but based on my analysis, all the changes are _legitimate_ (although the quality of the commits are shit imho). my analysis:

sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root /@pcaversaccio

2026.06.23 16:18

probably only 5 people in the world care but on 2 may the tornado cash proposal 66 was accepted (i.e. on-chain executed), which means an update to the ui version (tornadocash[.]eth[.]limo and some other domains). today i finally found the time to carefully review the _two new commits_. i documented my findings in a gist. i would really appreciate an additional review from others, as i can always miss something but based on my analysis, all the changes are _legitimate_ (although the quality of the commits are shit imho). my analysis:

sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root /@pcaversaccio

2026.02.16 20:09

so four days ago a new proposal for Tornado Cash was accepted, which means an update to the UI version (tornadocash[.]eth[.]limo and some other domains). I haven't seen anyone doing a dee-dive on the diff yet so I have spent several hours carefully reviewing the changes, including a detailed check of each dep update reflected in the new `yarn.lock` file. I documented my findings in a gist (see comment section). tbh I would greatly appreciate additional review from others as I can always miss something but based on my analysis so far, the changes appear legitimate & I have found _no evidence_ suggesting a supply chain attack, despite some concerns raised by some.