> the transfer of cryptocurrency is the same as the transfer of generic messages

Technically, yes. Legally and sociopolitically, no.

And if you intentionally muddle the data streams, that brings the full force of anti-money laundering, tax evasion and terrorist financing law against you. It gives almost any government a free pass to do what it wants.

Freedom to speak privately is, in most democracies, popularly recognised as a right. Freedom to pay using dark money is not. Attaching the second to the first weakens both.

Legally, yes. FinCEN distinguishes custodial exchanges with noncustodial wallets. It looks like signal is doing the latter.

Bitcoin Core (the software) is not registered as a money transmitter anywhere in the world, its developers are fine and never got into any trouble.

> FinCEN distinguishes custodial exchanges with noncustodial wallets. It looks like signal is doing the latter.

We agree. There is a legal difference between a custodial exchange and noncustodial wallet. Just as there is a difference between a non-money messaging system and a noncustodial wallet. The comment you are responding to concerned itself with the latter.

Simply enough, people do NOT want filthy hooker money in their wallets, if they don't need to. Yuck.

I'll tell you one way it's not, is as soon as someone commits a crime who happens to use Signal and the media gets ahold of this. It'll be a circus with terms like "dark webv and wha not thrown arohnd. GPs point #3 is kind of important for their reputation and if we want to onboard more people into crypto messaging.

Transferring cryptocurrency between different people (with the exception of spouses) is an asset disposal that is subject to capital gains tax in the UK. It doesn't matter what, if anything, you get in return.

You mean in the sense that it can be traced back to the originator, just like messages?

So how do I get the cryptocurrency in the first place? Especially Mobilecoin?