reply on: The Network Access Exception To The Money Transmitter Rule \ stacker news ~bitcoin

20 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Apr \ parent \ on: The Network Access Exception To The Money Transmitter Rule bitcoin

I ran out of edit time. There's another issue. How can the government treat bitcoin as money for this purpose, then treat it as property for IRS tax purposes? This is an obstacle to the prosecution as well.

54 sats \ 3 replies \ @om 29 Apr

OK, that's a different question but I'll try to answer it as well.

Despite its name money laundering covers not just money but any valuable. A better name would be value laundering. If ML charges could be avoided by shifting value into, say, gold, then somebody would make a gold payment network a long time ago.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Apr

This reminds me of a second amendment discussion-guns don't kill, people do. Just because a network can be used illegally doesn't make it a money laundering network. Every time the US mint produces a dollar bill, are they engaging in money laundering through their physical dollar network?

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @om 29 Apr

Exactly. If cash didn't exist until now and somebody would propose introducing it, the proposal would be brutally shot down on ML grounds.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Apr

I agree. There's nothing preventing the argument that it has become even more so as we move to a cashless society. LN has a much more legitimate use case.