The purpose of the post was just to discuss the likelihood that lightning wallets, nodes, or LSPs will be targeted next. In arguing against Tornado Cash, the US Attorney's Office actually argued in favor of lightning providers not being money transmitters. So, the FBI advisory inaccurately, and probably intentionally, left the impression that lightning products could be targeted under a similar theory as Tornado Cash and Samourai. It seems that by their own admission they can't.
All your points make sense legally. We'll see how the courts rule. I'm just saying that IMO it's far less likely that LN products will be attacked next.
Last time I checked three letter agencies don't care much about laws, even if their next attack doesn't stand legally they will do it anyway because the legal procedures can last long enough to scare away users, let alone attracting new people to the field
reply
Yeah, in the end you're probably right. Maybe pointing out the weakness in their arguments might give a few people the courage to stand tall.
reply
Lightning is very vulnerable to attack though, because of its architecture. It leads to centralized large nodes run by companies that can be easily targeted.
reply