21 sats \ 6 replies \ @028559d218 8 Oct \ parent \ on: SN's wallet plans meta
My understanding of SN zaps... is that they were held in an 'account' for us till they were 'withdrawn'. Each 'zap' is not a lightning transaction then. Just a number on a screen saying what our sat-count was (until we withdrew some of them).
There is no need, in my opinion, to worry about custodial/non-custodial over 100 sats it's too small to be significant.
write
preview
31 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 8 Oct
I agree with you, but holding 100 sats for you and letting you send it to other people is still money transmission. If I wouldn't go to jail for holding 100 sats for you, I would.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 8 Oct
Let's create an SN bailout fund in case any stacker finds himself behind bars for these illogical regulations.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 8 Oct
Why 'mericans became such pussies these days? That "money transmission law" refer only to fiat money, not to bitcoin.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 8 Oct
None of this makes any sense.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 8 Oct
Welcome to US financial regulations.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 8 Oct
Financial regulations for 100 sats (a fraction of a penny) on some obscure website (sorry but it's true).
No regulations for 35 TRILLION of debt growing every year. This is why we need Bitcoin so badly.
To be 50 TRILLION in 10 years
reply