Keep reading the DoJ document, it explains why. We need to level up here.
I read the guidance a few times and understood it as meaning non-custodial mixers are not covered. I had not read the statute itself.
I also read through the DoJ argument here, but at minimum does not seem ridiculous. We'll have to see what a judge makes of it (or I guess a jury?).
Also best to improve the law to make it unambiguously privacy friendly ... good luck with that, then we wouldn't need cryptocurrency in the first place.
In the US case the profit motive seems quite important, so I wonder if a non-profit could run a mixer without fees.
I don't think there's any role for COPA here, they are about patents (pronounced with Australian accent) and copyright stuff.
But "others" would be good yes.
No, they seem to prioritize by volume, with special preference for things sanctioned countries use. Lightning is still in its 'bunch of nerds' phase. Even LSPs are, which will be a target long before your basement routing node is.
That said: best to not cede an inch of territory here! Push them right back to custodians or even further. That may take a Supreme Court or Congress though, neither particularly easy to influence.
Let alone if you ask a DoJ lawyer...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938.53.0.pdf 
It goes on and on for pages arguing that being non-custodial is completely irrelevant and FinCen guidance shouldn't be read that way. 
Let alone if you ask a DoJ lawyer...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938/gov.uscourts.nysd.604938.53.0.pdf
The wallet project may have flopped, but this ten year old trailer has not lost relevance: https://youtu.be/Ouo7Q6Cf_yc
Unfortunately the EU is also attacking privacy, so there's something to be set for prioritizing the local frontline.
Entitlement is a sneaky thing, you might not even recognize it in yourself. At the same time, I suspect the silent majority already knows that it's up to them. And us Europeans will of course help where we can. nostr:note1dvh8qaxfaawnau68qle3thxvz3vx5jsyttuzxnd4279an7ykk3vqxhv4ph
True, but there could still have been some bug that causes funds to end up in limbo when the coordinator disappears in the middle of complex task. But so far it sounds like there was no problem.
Pfew that had me worried for a second: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/gitlab-backups-for-bitcoin-core-repository/624
Note that the FBI took down the hosted Gitlab of Samurai.
Pfew that had me worried for a second: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/gitlab-backups-for-bitcoin-core-repository/624
That's an ongoing research topic, with some work in progress stuff. Google "delving bitcoin github" (I think the forum is down though...)
In theory yes, but the backend probably runs a slightly modified eclair with more bells and whistles.
* deterministic / reproducible builds
There are no privacy benefits to signature aggregation. The public keys are still visible on the chain.
It allows you to put slightly more transactions in a block, which may or may not actually make a difference for fees.
And thanks for listening!