pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 19 Jan 2023
Watch me.. how I don't give a shit about all that crap.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
10 sats \ 15 replies \ @notgeld 19 Jan 2023
@DarthCoin is not right. It should be seen along with BTC-E, Hydra, Chatex, Garantex cases. And finally, Tornado.cash developers, too.
They may come after Robosats too, I can easily imagine that.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Jan 2023
OK, please send me all your bitcoins, right now. I will take care of them.
If you are so scared about this shit, then, why do you continue using bitcoin?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @notgeld 19 Jan 2023
Sell me your car/house for 1M sats. If you can't why do you use Bitcoin.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 19 Jan 2023
I mean, they will go after any money transmitter operating without a license. Sorry to break it to you but Robosats is a temporary custodian sitting in the middle of all p2p transactions. It's a cat and mouse game from here and I bet the crypto exchange was in a similar spot but with a bigger target on the back esp. with connections to DNMs.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @notgeld 19 Jan 2023
Bitzlato worked similarly to RoboSats.
And, yeah, they work on broad definition of money transmitters including LN nodes for example.
I just think that this should be fought in many fronts, first and foremost using more advanced tech and activism, too.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 19 Jan 2023
No, this isn't just LN node stuff. I mean literally custodians. Lightning node routers do not have custody of the funds they are routing. RoboSats does.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @notgeld 19 Jan 2023
I talk about what they want to introduce in FATF with VASP and etc, not about what LN actually is or how it operates.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 19 Jan 2023
Has nothing to do with the conversation. We're talking about taking down custodial p2p platforms because they are custodial.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @P2P_bitcoin 19 Jan 2023
It would take only a single e-mail and the U.S. could go after the non-custodial P2P platforms that have no KYC/identity verification requirements (i.e., HodlHodl, Bisq, LocalCoinSwap) by seizing the domains. But they haven't.
They could go after the traders using those platforms with sting operations. But they aren't (as far as we know, albeit with a couple known exceptions in a few countries, such as Nigeria).
They could. But they aren't.
If I had to guess it is because they can monitor (orders are public, and they can enter trades to obtain the counterparty's identity from the fiat payments).
Might they go after these platforms or traders in the future? I suppose so. But that would push it further below their radar, which is probably not something they want to see. And they got a lot bigger fish to fry than the plebs buying and selling a little bitcoin here and there, without being KYC required.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @247bf84fda 25 Aug freebie
deleted by author