I'm genuinely curious if one runs the risk of running afoul of regulations in certain jurisdictions by holding funds on behalf of users. And if so, has anyone thought of an implementation that does not require stacker.news (or similar site) to host funds (not-custodial)?

9 sats \ 1 replies \ @k00b 15 Oct

We’ll be non-custodial and decentralized by the end of next year. I’d love SN TO get hit with some kind of legal thing though. We can really use the PR.

reply
13 sats \ 1 boost0 replies \ @rheedi0 15 Oct

👀 Looking forward to seeing how you design this

reply
16 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Oct

Why would you put yourself and with your own consent under jurisdiction of anybody? Only slaves do that. Bitcoiners are sovereign individuals not nocoiner slaves. Please read this https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/natural-law-and-bitcoin

reply
14 sats \ 1 replies \ @CypherPoet 15 Oct

With my authority as the Honorable Chief Supreme President Commander of the Universe, I hereby decree that Stacker News requires a money transmitter license for my jurisdiction. Please send 200 BTC immediately in order to comply 😂😂😂

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Oct

I will gladly accept your contract offer, but only if you send me back 400 BTC 😂😂😂

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @bataroot 15 Oct

How did I miss your article about Natural Law! Great read. Thanks!

reply
15 sats \ 1 replies \ @fiatjaf 15 Oct

The goal is to never ask these questions, do not ask for permission.

reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @ThrillerX_ 18 Oct

Yes always this!

reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @mf 15 Oct

I'll allow it. I hereby consent everyone to be sovereign

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @relc 15 Oct

i often think of it like if you have a zebra and a horse. you can paint the horse but it does not become a zebra.

reply