@siggy47
stacking since: #30782
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 5h \ parent \ on: Stacker Sports- Day 145- Falling Leafs Stacker_Sports
Exactly. Damn near impossible to root for that team.
111 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 5h \ parent \ on: Stacker Sports- Day 145- Falling Leafs Stacker_Sports
It might look easy, but if you knew the hours I put in analyzing the rosters, individual matchups, etc.
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.
Under the same rationale, mining pools could fall under the same network access exception. This stuff is complicated legally, and it's a snapshot in time. Laws can always change, courts can come down with different opinions. Right now, based on the U. S. Attorney's arguments, I would say mining pools are not money transmitters, but it's tough to say whether they can be seen as network access providers. I have not thought this through, and I'm not that familiar with mining pool operations, so don't rely on my opinion. This is not legal advice.
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.
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).
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 20h \ parent \ on: First Annual Maple Leafs Choke-A-Thon Stacker_Sports
I don't think anyone had them out in 5. I'm glad the Isles won, but I'm afraid it's just delaying the inevitable.
I found the second half of the article more interesting than the 6102 discussion. The ETFization of bitcoin. Banning self custody does seem to be the bigger threat.