156 sats \ 9 replies \ @windward 28 Apr \ on: The Network Access Exception To The Money Transmitter Rule bitcoin
It seems that the lightning network is exactly the type of general network contemplated by the statute exception. Those who provide access to the network fall under the exception to the money transmitter rule.
This makes the most sense to me as well after reading & re-reading these cases. Please note I'm not a lawyer, just an autist who is also reading along.
It seems that they are treating the lightning network in a similar fashion to torrent uploaders - if you aren't uploading anything you don't have the rights to distribute, it's a perfectly legal way to distribute large files. Similarly, if bitcoin is not money (according to the state, it's treated as property in the US) simply running a node that connects to the network is not running a money service -provided users have 'exit' and autonomy.
Because user access is not solely dependent on a provider's node (like say, an LNbits wallet running on your Uncle Jim's Umbrel server, or in the case of wallets like Phoenix or Nayuta where you can't open your own channels to elsewhere), I think the LN network is mostly in the clear.
Everyone else in the states that is running something like that that I know of is basically a KYC app ( Cash App, Strike et.al)
Therefore, the FBI Advisory could be seen as intentionally misleading, and even more puzzling.
Speculation - the advisory was designed as a chilling effect in the industry to get the intended result the state wants but can't immediately legislate.
Every pleb should be investing in self custody immediately, if they haven't already.
write
preview
141 sats \ 8 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Apr
I would agree with just about everything you said. Just keep in mind that the distinction is not the bitcoin is property, not money thing. As the papers also indicate:
Courts have uniformly held, and the defendant does not dispute in his motion, that “funds” and “money” for purposes of this statute include cryptocurrencies. E.g., Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 705-10 (Bitcoin exchange covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1960); United States v. Faiella, 39 F. Supp. 3d 544, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Bitcoin clearly qualifies as ‘money’ or ‘funds’” for purposes of 1960 prosecution); United States v. Harmon, 474 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2020) (applying Section 1960 to Bitcoin mixing service).
reply
75 sats \ 7 replies \ @windward 28 Apr
ty for the update -they tax it like property so I assumed courts would treat it as such -nice to know the gov't will change it's definitions to suit it's needs
reply
127 sats \ 5 replies \ @SpaceHodler 28 Apr
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Apr
Yep
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @MiddleWay 28 Apr
amen
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 28 Apr
The SEC does not call Bitcoin a security however.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 28 Apr
Good catch! It wasn't my own.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 28 Apr
Remember that scammers believe they are part of us. They project their problems and say "Bitcoin" when complaining about it. Be careful about sharing around their propaganda. It will enable them to grift on our efforts and create the reputation with the general person that we are scammers like them.
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 28 Apr
Exactly. The taxable event crap is ridiculous if they call bitcoin money.
reply