pull down to refresh

afaict it still sets a precedent vibe that non-custodial services need to know who their customers are
143 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 30 Jul
It's nuanced. Your interpretation is worst case scenario, which could turn out to be accurate . Here, evidence was presented as to an actual solicitation of funds from Russian oligarchs. An unfortunate joke which was ultimately their downfall.
I'm not saying this is great, but it's better than first appeared.
reply
This was destined to be a Rorschach test.
Despite it being long ago telegraphed that the prosecution had less than nothing, so much so they even got rugged directly by FinCEN, and now having to save-face by settling for a conspiracy plea over stupid taunts... hipsters will find a way to make it about their virtues on custody.
reply
So basically... non-custodial privacy tools are OK. But if the developer has 'reason to believe' the tools are used by illicit actors then... ???
reply