4 ms·

What are the regulatory hurdles to operating a lightning node in the US? It makes you a money transmitter, right?

by AlexCoventry 9y ago

Pada 9y ago
I think the same could be said of any bitcoin node.
- xur17 9y ago
  But a regular bitcoin node isn't transferring money. It's simply tracking the state of the network. A lightning node is creating transactions and financial agreements with other nodes in the network.
  - Pada 9y ago
    Bitcoin nodes propagate transactions created by users as well.
    - FriedPickles 9y ago
      They relay information about transactions, but do not receive and resend value as a lightning node does.
ozmbie 9y ago
You're transmitting cryptocurrency, not fiat. So I'm unsure how it works.
FriedPickles 9y ago
If FinCEN rules that operating a lightning node constitutes acting as a money transmitter, it would be unenforceable. It may still discourage operating an intermediate node in the US and shift the majority of nodes to other countries.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Why unenforceable?
  - ExactoKnight 9y ago
    The same way Bitcoin can't realistically be stopped by any government. (Short of seizing network hashing power..)
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Or by ruling that it is illegal to buy, sell or own bitcoin. While bitcoin might continue, most citizens will stop bothering at that point because buying or selling bitcoin shows up in tax audits. The government can also make it illegal to operate a bitcoin node or transmit bitcoin transactions, including for ISPs, which would get the protocol quickly blocked. Additionally they could rule Bitcoin to be an illegal form of monetary exchange which would mean that anything you buy via bitcoin would get you in hot water in addition to the tax problems if you can't prove you used a legal monetary method. Of course, some people might use Tor and somehow manage to get money extracted from the Tax system so they can buy bitcoin without their local tax office knowing... but how many of the Mr. Normal population are able and willing to do that for bitcoin? I think you severely underestimate the power of the government.
      - ExactoKnight 9y ago
        You will have a drug war on your hands, only way harder to enforce thanks to encryption. It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.
        zaarn 9y ago
        The drug war hasn't really helped in putting illegal drugs into mainstream use. Mainstream users will not use bitcoin if it becomes illegal. End of story. Maybe some people continue to use it but it'll probably be far below any drug usage levels. >It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do. That's barely relevant because the "rich ruling classes" could still do it. I'm evaluating this as "what if they do" not "would they do"
abecedarius 9y ago
https://coincenter.org/files/2018-01/federalalternativev1-1.pdf https://coincenter.org/files/2018-01/federalalternativev1-1.... talks about the general picture (I only skimmed it). It wants reform to "include a safe harbor for novel businesses that do not create the sort of risks to consumers that money transmission licensing is meant to address (but which may be treated as money transmitters under a loose interpretation of some state statutes)."
urza 9y ago
Here is something from Andreas Antonopoulos on this topic: https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s I think the most important aspect is that Lightning Nodes are just sending bitcoin transactions, the whole system is trustless, the node relying your transaction to destination can't steal your money any more then bitcoin full node relying your transaction to miners can.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Thanks. That was very unsatisfying, though. He's right that there are usually thresholds where money-transmitter laws kick in, but having to track that and refrain once you hit the limit would be onerous and limiting.
apo 9y ago
I've seen nothing to suggest that a LN operator would be considered a money transmitter. Whats your best reason for thinking so, and why does your definition of money transmission not include miners?
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Miners only register a transfer of value and validate it against their perspective of the current ledger. Transfer routed through a lightning channel involves explicit exchange of funds between intermediaries.
  - keymone 9y ago
    this is not entirely correct. in A -> B -> C payment at no point does B hold A's money with a promise to pay it forward to C.
    - AlexCoventry 9y ago
      B's balance with A and C fluctuate during the transfer, though, and that is enough to at least make it look like a money-transmitter relationship. The onion routing is very unfortunate, because it means regulators are likely to treat the network as a blatant money-laundering tool.
Klathmon 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding: A LN node is no more a "money transmitter" than any internet router that a bank transaction flows through is a "money transmitter". The node or router can't "steal" or modify the amount or destination in any way, and there is no counterparty risk with either of them, so they both aren't "money transmitters".

What are the regulatory hurdles to operating a lightning node in the US? It makes you a money transmitter, right?

Pada 9y ago

I think the same could be said of any bitcoin node.

xur17 9y ago
But a regular bitcoin node isn't transferring money. It's simply tracking the state of the network. A lightning node is creating transactions and financial agreements with other nodes in the network.
- Pada 9y ago
  Bitcoin nodes propagate transactions created by users as well.
  - FriedPickles 9y ago
    They relay information about transactions, but do not receive and resend value as a lightning node does.

ozmbie 9y ago

You're transmitting cryptocurrency, not fiat. So I'm unsure how it works.

FriedPickles 9y ago

If FinCEN rules that operating a lightning node constitutes acting as a money transmitter, it would be unenforceable. It may still discourage operating an intermediate node in the US and shift the majority of nodes to other countries.

AlexCoventry 9y ago
Why unenforceable?
- ExactoKnight 9y ago
  The same way Bitcoin can't realistically be stopped by any government. (Short of seizing network hashing power..)
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Or by ruling that it is illegal to buy, sell or own bitcoin. While bitcoin might continue, most citizens will stop bothering at that point because buying or selling bitcoin shows up in tax audits. The government can also make it illegal to operate a bitcoin node or transmit bitcoin transactions, including for ISPs, which would get the protocol quickly blocked. Additionally they could rule Bitcoin to be an illegal form of monetary exchange which would mean that anything you buy via bitcoin would get you in hot water in addition to the tax problems if you can't prove you used a legal monetary method. Of course, some people might use Tor and somehow manage to get money extracted from the Tax system so they can buy bitcoin without their local tax office knowing... but how many of the Mr. Normal population are able and willing to do that for bitcoin? I think you severely underestimate the power of the government.
    - ExactoKnight 9y ago
      You will have a drug war on your hands, only way harder to enforce thanks to encryption. It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do.
      - zaarn 9y ago
        The drug war hasn't really helped in putting illegal drugs into mainstream use. Mainstream users will not use bitcoin if it becomes illegal. End of story. Maybe some people continue to use it but it'll probably be far below any drug usage levels. >It's a losing game, and I think you forget that there are way too many rich people in positions of power who like crypto for it to be successfully killed. The ruling classes actually like it more than the lower classes do. That's barely relevant because the "rich ruling classes" could still do it. I'm evaluating this as "what if they do" not "would they do"

abecedarius 9y ago

https://coincenter.org/files/2018-01/federalalternativev1-1.pdf https://coincenter.org/files/2018-01/federalalternativev1-1.... talks about the general picture (I only skimmed it). It wants reform to "include a safe harbor for novel businesses that do not create the sort of risks to consumers that money transmission licensing is meant to address (but which may be treated as money transmitters under a loose interpretation of some state statutes)."

urza 9y ago

Here is something from Andreas Antonopoulos on this topic: https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s https://youtu.be/c4TjfaLgzj4?t=14m35s I think the most important aspect is that Lightning Nodes are just sending bitcoin transactions, the whole system is trustless, the node relying your transaction to destination can't steal your money any more then bitcoin full node relying your transaction to miners can.

AlexCoventry 9y ago
Thanks. That was very unsatisfying, though. He's right that there are usually thresholds where money-transmitter laws kick in, but having to track that and refrain once you hit the limit would be onerous and limiting.

apo 9y ago

I've seen nothing to suggest that a LN operator would be considered a money transmitter. Whats your best reason for thinking so, and why does your definition of money transmission not include miners?

AlexCoventry 9y ago
Miners only register a transfer of value and validate it against their perspective of the current ledger. Transfer routed through a lightning channel involves explicit exchange of funds between intermediaries.
- keymone 9y ago
  this is not entirely correct. in A -> B -> C payment at no point does B hold A's money with a promise to pay it forward to C.
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    B's balance with A and C fluctuate during the transfer, though, and that is enough to at least make it look like a money-transmitter relationship. The onion routing is very unfortunate, because it means regulators are likely to treat the network as a blatant money-laundering tool.

Klathmon 9y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding: A LN node is no more a "money transmitter" than any internet router that a bank transaction flows through is a "money transmitter". The node or router can't "steal" or modify the amount or destination in any way, and there is no counterparty risk with either of them, so they both aren't "money transmitters".