JUST IN: The US’ response to the defense's motion for dismissal in the Tornado Cash case is out.
It argues that a company doesn't need to "control" funds to be considered a money transmitter business. This development could have significant ramifications for the Samourai case. 
That’s a very tenuous argument…
How did they connect to Tornado? They weren't running their own nodes...no chance.
I need some to break this down for me who knows, but idk any shitcoiners.
Basically, the legislation is so vague, LEO can point to any transaction of any type, and claim it's illegal under the act. And they'd be technically correct.
To beat such a charge, you'll need very expensive lawyers, and political support.
This way, people with power are exempt from the law, but you and I are buggered.
Can you provide a link to the response?
Couldn’t find the response, but the amicus filing makes for fascinating reading - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938.30.0.pdf
They're actually wrong. It's called the Uniform Commercial Code Article 12, which deems allows for "control" of cryptocurrency via what they call "Controllable Electronic Records". Passed in most states, and we've been pushing for more.
nostr:note1c6lmy2szejla74vu2msnmvwl2gd8y2tgtseztrxh46v2q8c4ck5s93cnjl
Absurd
#Bitcoin doesn't identify as a money transmitter business. US misgendered it.
correct me if I'm wrong here, but by that logic wouldn't every internet provider in the world be a money transmitter business?
Cloudflare would arguably be the largest money transmitter business in the world.
