I don't necessarily disagree with you that the specifics of this case may not be exactly applicable to Monero. However, I think people are being woefully naive if they think that the US Government will be OK with people sending large sums of money anonymously. Whether it be through finding existing laws that can be applied, or just flat out changing the law to explicitly ban these types of transactions, I can guarantee that when people think they have found a technical loophole the law usually comes down on the side of "does what you're doing constitute behavior that the original legislation was meant to prohibit". Just look at what happened with Aereo [1], I think the same thing will (at least eventually) happen with cryptocurrencies where the ledger isn't fully traceable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

There has been so much legislation going on in the past couple of years to make sure a lot of financial reporting happens to the US, to an extent that some chinese instutions flat out refused taking payments from US based payment providers simply to avoid that reporting burden.

We would be kidding ourselves if we denied the geopolitical implications of that reporting burden. For Taiwan for example every single international transaction is proxied through a US bank.

I believe the geopolitics behind it is to ensure that the US is able to enforce their international sanctions. Anything bypassing that definitely a thorn in their eyes.

However we shouldn't forget that there are those that would like to reduce the reliance on those systems. So while US banks may cut off access other countries may not.

EDIT: yes, the US is not the only country doing that. Iran for example while bartering with China also completely banned cryptocurrencies for the longest time. Then finally allowed blockchain applications but only if they are used for non payment purposes.

Indeed, it wouldn’t take much for them to legislate to make the whole ring signature mechanism illegal.

Or you just can't exchange crypto currencies against dollars because the finance industry is already regulated and has to follow the rules.

All really has to happen is to make ACH transfers to cryptocurrency exchanges illegal. Banks will very happily comply with blocking those transactions.

You could just buy and sell them for cash, you don't need banks for that

Depends on the country but if you exchange money you have to comply with regulatory rules.

Rules are only interesting when it's likely that you can be forced to follow them. In this case, they're not germane.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. But at the end of the day, this defense is predicated on making a US federal judge understand all those technical details.

I think the most commonsense reform is to have computer crime handled by specialized courts, much the same as tax law currently is. These domains are simply too complex to have them handled by legal generalists, who are expected to learn it all from first principles on each and every case.

Can't tax law cases eventually make it to the Supreme Court anyway?

Anything can go to the supreme court if you try hard enough: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus

But also yes, the Supreme Court has discretionary appeals jurisdiction over any federal case.

What do you think this is? Some kind of meritocracy?

>This mixer was penalized for running an unlicensed MSB.

In addition to laundering money. But they were charged with money laundering too.

"COUNT ONE (Conspiracy To Launder Monetary Instruments)"

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1249026/downl...

>>But for money transmission to occur, an intermediary needs to accept customer funds. For a Monero transfer, there is no intermediary. Someone could build an MSB on Monero itself which would require registration, but using Monero to send funds directly to a merchant for one's own purchase, for example, is not money transmission.

They are huge fines and decades in jail sentences at play in money laundering. How sure are you? Not that anyone is going to do X or Y because someone in a thread said so, but things aren't as simple sometimes. Add the potential penalties and...

Don't take my word for it. Read what FinCEN says directly:

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20...

This.

It should also be noted that government does not seem to know how to deal with privacy oriented coins ( ref#1 - discussion of current regime for crypto as seen by US AG ). That said, they seem to suggest ( page 41 ) that using Monero is inherently risky and prone to illicit activity and businesses allowing its use "should consider the increased risks". Knowing how banks read those types of documents, you can safely bet banks will simply refuse to bank anyone if there is even a whiff of transaction with Monero, Zcash, Dash.

Ref#1:https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1326061/download

edit: Disclaimer. Do not be an idiot. I am just a guy on the internet. If in doubt, hire an actual lawyer.

Gemini exchange seems to have no difficulty with banking. Coinbase seems to have no difficulty with banking.

You are not wrong, but the link I listed is relatively recent. Things like that rarely change that fast. Not to mention, both of your examples likely have working compliance units ( and FinCEN wants exchanges to be compliant ). The mixer FinCEN busted didn't and wasn't.

Also, again, I am not a lawyer. In other words, I fully accept the possibility that I am wrong.

However, I do know how conservative banks are.

Kraken just started banking in the U.S. too, and they even list Monero.

Notably, Coinbase does not handle Monero.

I understand the argument with interactiveness, but even so, do you think it'd be unreasonable to think that Monero miners/node operators could be targeted?

>I'm happy to answer other questions as well.

>This is money transmission and requires registration with FinCEN

Could you clarify the practical constraints on this assertion? If I am an alien living on the moon and connected to the Internet with lasers, who is enforcing any "requirement" and how?

Do you see CoinJoins as implemented by Samourai and Wasabi to be possibly liable in the same way?

Is this legal advice about the definition of "money transmitter"? It sure reads that way.

Obviously not legal advice, but FinCEN's guidance is quite easy to follow here:

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20...

> Providers of anonymizing services, commonly referred to as “mixers” or “tumblers,” are either persons that accept CVCs and retransmit them in a manner designed to prevent others from tracing the transmission back to its source (anonymizing services provider), or suppliers of software a transmittor would use for the same purpose (anonymizing software provider).

> An anonymizing services provider is a money transmitter under FinCEN regulations. The added feature of concealing the source of the transaction does not change that person’s status under the BSA.

> An anonymizing software provider is not a money transmitter. FinCEN regulations exempt from the definition of money transmitter those persons providing “the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services.” This is because suppliers of tools (communications, hardware, or software) that may be utilized in money transmission, like anonymizing software, are engaged in trade and not money transmission.

Another resource: https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/anti-money-laun...

> Providers of anonymizing services, commonly referred to as “mixers” or “tumblers,” are either persons that accept CVCs and retransmit them in a manner designed to prevent others from tracing the transmission back to its source (anonymizing services provider), or suppliers of software a transmittor would use for the same purpose (anonymizing software provider).

How does that not make Monero itself liable as an "anonymizing software provider"?

Well, you see what FinCEN says about those:

> An anonymizing software provider is not a money transmitter. FinCEN regulations exempt from the definition of money transmitter those persons providing “the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services.” This is because suppliers of tools (communications, hardware, or software) that may be utilized in money transmission, like anonymizing software, are engaged in trade and not money transmission.

In simple terms, the Monero developers are providing software (the Monero network, nodes, and wallet software) that can be used for money transmission, but the developers do not need to register as MSBs unless they also have a side company that conducts money transmission.

Legal advice is regulated where it means applying the law to the specific facts of another person's case, because that is considered the "practice" of law.

Applying the law to a generic set of facts, or to your own facts, is fine.

Nothing posted on a pseudo-anonymous internet forum is ever legal advice.

Have you paid for this advice? Are you a client? Was this directed at you?

If not then this is opinion.

> Have you paid for this advice?

Payment is generally not required to establish an attorney-client relationship.

> Are you a client? Was this directed at you?

No, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the poster it was directed at.

At the very least, wouldn't an attorney be required to establish an attorney-client relationship?

BTW here's some legal advice: don't jaywalk. I think it's illegal in some places.

No, a preexisting attorney-client relationship isn't always required. Offering advice pertaining to the application of laws or regulations to a specific person's facts is generally considered offering legal advice.

Some states regulate this very heavily, others don't care as much. Generally, California tends to regulate this pretty heavily for lawyers (for purposes of creating an attorney-client relationships that can subject them to malpractice claims) but otherwise not at all for non-lawyers unless they specifically hold themselves out to be in the business of providing legal advice (very common with immigration issues). So, offering random advice on the internet wouldn't be an issue for a non-lawyer (but could be one for a practicing lawyer if they get too specific).

My understanding (that is, I was told by a lawyer I know) is that if the person receiving the information thinks there's an attorney-client relationship, there is. Presumably there's some defense of "a reasonable person wouldn't have thought that", but this is why lawyers tend to be very diligent about saying "this is not legal advice".