Thread

If you think an LSP is “obviously not an MSB” you’ve never spoken to a lawyer with any sense at all. It may not be an MSB, and I hope it’s not an MSB, and I think it’s probably not an MSB, but speaking with any certainty about this is absolutely impossible. The law and regulations about this are not even remotely clear and do not consider any kind of system like bitcoin, let alone lightning. Don’t talk shit about others avoiding substantial personal legal risk.

Replies (15)

Especially seems once you cross the line into running a business/making profit you really want to listening to those lawyers, even if they're telling you things you don't want to hear. Wasabi devs might have got some shit but at least they're not on a plane to the states... Many of those mouthing off probably aren't really taking any personal risks themselves.
Saying that something is illegal is not an argument against that thing. IT IS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Laws are an arbitrary judgement made by whoever has political power at the time. Laws are a means for a government to regulate people in the way that they see fit but does not make them a universal standard of morality. ILLEGALITY IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Rebut any authority with a simple question: can you provide any document where I signed and consent to give you any authority and/or jurisdiction over me, the living man and my own properties, money etc ? Authority comes from author, you are the author and if you do not give that to somebody that means they do not have it. Stop consenting to bullshit so called laws ! And btw... lawyers are not your friends. They swear the oath to the BAR not to you... lawyers are a trap to consider you an incapacitaded that cannot read their laws, that why they say "I will represent you", it's a trick, so you can consent that you give them all the power and you are just a slave.
even this is too optimistic. “is an MSB” is not a meaningful relation. this is about threats to state power, not philosophy and linguistics. what matters is what actions will get you thrown in a box, not the arguments you make while they are throwing you.
↩ replying to Matt Corallo
I read the guidance a few times and understood it as meaning non-custodial mixers are not covered. I had not read the statute itself. I also read through the DoJ argument here, but at minimum does not seem ridiculous. We'll have to see what a judge makes of it (or I guess a jury?). Also best to improve the law to make it unambiguously privacy friendly ... good luck with that, then we wouldn't need cryptocurrency in the first place.
↩ replying to Matt Corallo
I guess you read the CoinCenter bit but I was at least slightly confused on the state of things here, but Iiuc guidance is not binding. Anyway leaving this here in case anyone comes along this thread later
Coin Center
DOJ's New Stance on Crypto Wallets is a Threat to Liberty and the Rule of Law
Sudden DOJ charges against non-custodial wallet developers challenge long-standing U.S. policy on money transmission. It is regulation by criminal ...