Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

Re:Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cry... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @07:18PM (#26718561)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cry... by dannyw on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @12:37AM (#26720650)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cry... by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @12:39AM (#26720661)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cry... by jdroe1211 on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @12:10PM (#26726967)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]