when regulators say that coins used in mixing via coinjoin is to be put on a watch list
AND THEN .. YOU then use coinjoin, thus puts your coins on a watch list
Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list", I don't care. If someone wants privacy, then coinjoins and XMR is the way, and that's why regulators try to discourage their use as much as possible. If we switched to mixing using mining pools, then guess what; this process would then be considered illicit, and anyone mixing through the pools would be "put on a watch list".
By the way, you do know that their operation would then be considered a money transmitting service, right? I'm just saying, because I know you're blubbering about this when it comes to lightning.
YOU are telling people to use mixing services such as coinjoin which are
already considered by regulators as suspicious enough to delegate
via active regulation that services to put funds on watchlists and investigate if it reaches thresholds
thus im saying use ways that are currently not in regulators remit and currently regulators have deemed mining as NOT A MSB
you keep promoting people should use things that do fall into regulators remit.. and you want people to avoid using things outside of regulators remit.. (you are the opposite of helpful)
as for LN:
i am saying about regulators already discerning that subnetwork routers are considered MSB
thus again when you promote LN routing you are trying to push people into things that fall into regulation
you are not helping those you advise
you are the one blubbering because you have not even done the research on the regulations to know whats good for users and not good for users
as for you then blubbering about "Regulators might as well say that doing self-custody is to be put on a "watch list"
you are blubbering about things that are not current regulations... you are not doing the research or talking about current active risks of users using services, features, functions, utilities..
in regards to blackhats blubber about his fear mongering self custody and peer to peer of non mixing transaction....
lets let the financial action task force clarify
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/12-Month-Review-Revised-FATF-Standards-Virtual-Assets-VASPS.pdf52. Currently, peer-to-peer transfers of virtual assets, without the use or
involvement of a VASP or financial institution, are not explicitly subject to AML/CFT
obligations under the revised FATF Standards. The lack of explicit coverage of peer-
to-peer virtual asset transactions of this type was deliberate, as the revised FATF
Standards’ general focus is on placing AML/CFT obligations on intermediaries
between individuals and the financial system. The lack of explicit coverage of peer-to-
peer transactions via private / unhosted wallets was a source of concern for a number
of jurisdictions. Jurisdictions noted that transfers to the unregulated peer-to-peer
sector could present a leak in tracing illicit flows of virtual assets.
53. However, jurisdictions did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to
warrant changing the revised FATF Standards at this point at time. There was
insufficient evidence demonstrating that the number and value of anonymous peer-
to-peer transactions has changed enough since June 2019 to present a materially
different ML/TF risk. Further research could be undertaken with the VASP sector,
academics and software experts and engineers to better understand the scope of the
unregulated peer-to-peer sector.
63. Peer-to-peer transactions via private / unhosted wallets. Peer-to-peer
transfers of virtual assets, without the use or involvement of a VASP or financial
institution, are not explicitly subject to AML/CFT obligations under the revised FATF
thus the blackhat blubber he got from oeleo where they were insinuating that bitcoin devs, bitcoin nodes and bitcoin miners are considered 'vasp(MSB) IS FALSE
they made that crap up to try to recruit people into using LN.. via fake scare tactics
