0 sats \ 3 replies \ @om 29 Apr \ parent \ on: The Network Access Exception To The Money Transmitter Rule bitcoin
Huh. I think the goverment did use everyting against TC.
don't transmit money, they "provide access".
Suppose you have a channel with Phoenix and you pay somebody through it. ACINQ is by your request negotiating a HTLC with you and with the next node on the path. The way government describes money transmission in the TC case (I mean USB cable / frying pan stuff), that looks rather like money transmission to me.
On the positive side, I believe ACINQ is not a CASP by the EU's definition.
write
preview
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Apr
Huh. I think the goverment did use everyting against TC
I was directly quoting from their memorandum, where they didn't challenge the nature of the mixing network, but rather than limited scope.
reply
54 sats \ 1 reply \ @om 29 Apr
I don't think the goverment cares about nature of things at all. Does that thing allow Alice to pay Bob when the government doesn't want Alice to pay Bob? If yes, then the government will attack it.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 29 Apr
Yes, this is all academic. Playing on their field only buys time. In the end, I'll do what I want. Nodes and LSPs are easy targets, if the US wants to further drive innovation overseas. Plenty of developing countries would love to be hosts.
reply