pull down to refresh
54 sats \ 13 replies \ @om 29 Apr \ on: The Network Access Exception To The Money Transmitter Rule bitcoin
wha? it's obviously a money-transsmitting rather than a general-purpose network.
General in the sense of the case law does not refer to the purpose of the network or the type of data. It refers to whether the network is open to the general public and widely distributed. The LN is obviously worldwide.
reply
Is there a supreme court judge in the house?! Anybody!?
reply
So you think the government has permitted anybody to open a money laundering shop as long as the services are open to the general public?
I still believe that my interpretation makes more sense.
reply
I ran out of edit time. There's another issue. How can the government treat bitcoin as money for this purpose, then treat it as property for IRS tax purposes? This is an obstacle to the prosecution as well.
reply
OK, that's a different question but I'll try to answer it as well.
Despite its name money laundering covers not just money but any valuable. A better name would be value laundering. If ML charges could be avoided by shifting value into, say, gold, then somebody would make a gold payment network a long time ago.
reply
This reminds me of a second amendment discussion-guns don't kill, people do.
Just because a network can be used illegally doesn't make it a money laundering network. Every time the US mint produces a dollar bill, are they engaging in money laundering through their physical dollar network?
reply
reply
I agree. There's nothing preventing the argument that it has become even more so as we move to a cashless society. LN has a much more legitimate use case.
reply
The government did not use that argument against Tornado Cash. They have unlimited resources to analyze the law and write these memoranda. If they thought that was a valid argument they would have raised it, I think. Remember, lightning providers don't transmit money, they "provide access". That's the purpose of the exemption. Maybe you can offer your assistance! You raise a good point.
Regardless, I just picked out a small issue for this post. There are obviously many more, beginning with "code is protected speech" , which seems well settled. We'll all know a lot more once the trial court rules on this motion. Then we wait around for the appeals process.
reply
Huh. I think the goverment did use everyting against TC.
don't transmit money, they "provide access".
Suppose you have a channel with Phoenix and you pay somebody through it. ACINQ is by your request negotiating a HTLC with you and with the next node on the path. The way government describes money transmission in the TC case (I mean USB cable / frying pan stuff), that looks rather like money transmission to me.
On the positive side, I believe ACINQ is not a CASP by the EU's definition.
reply
Huh. I think the goverment did use everyting against TC
I was directly quoting from their memorandum, where they didn't challenge the nature of the mixing network, but rather than limited scope.
reply
reply
Yes, this is all academic. Playing on their field only buys time. In the end, I'll do what I want. Nodes and LSPs are easy targets, if the US wants to further drive innovation overseas. Plenty of developing countries would love to be hosts.
reply