I have a documentary loaded about the pirate bay and the legal cases there, I mostly missed that whole debacle. Was under the impression though that the website never (or only very very briefly?) got shut down? Ross Ulbricht is in jail yes, but the website is still going strong (I’m told). Megaupload remains the only case I know of then where a website (and lots of user data, without warning or recourse) was aggressively taken down…
My point being, the bark is far far worse than the bite when it comes to copyright, until they are really pushed like with megaupload, it seems like.
Ross ran silk road not the pirate bay. ( maybe you knew that, first reading of your statement had me confused)
Silk Road was seized and dead but with alternatives still about.
Megaupload overstepped, should never have hired celebs to do the adverts and drawn all that attention.
Tor is pretty much compromised now, the whole thing is surveilled and packets tracked from start to finish, to easy to seize a server that’s hosting the site, and dark markets get infiltrated and taken down from the inside along with alot of distributors.
Kickass torrents, a major and extremely popular torrent site, was taken down.
The main site of Kickass Torrents was shut down a few years ago. This was the result of a law enforcement operation lead by Homeland Security Investigations and the Internal Revenue Service, both American organizations.
Are you implying that I have implied that corporations taking legal action against elders would bring down the network? Or what’s your point?
It worked though: Since the Pirate Bay case exists, people are much less likely to put up a torrent site in Sweden. Because it’s now clear that this is punishable with huge fines and jail time.
So if a similar thing happens with elders in some country, that would discourage people to run nodes there.
You can get in some trouble for running a tor relay, even tho you’re just receiving some encrypted data, decrypting it (results in another encrypted message; TOR = the onion router, for routing messages that use multi-layer encryption, like an onion) and sending it to another tor relay/exit. One difference between tor & SN is that you can not tell that someone is running a SN node as easy as in tor. In tor there’s a global server directory with all the IP addresses in one place, in SN only a few nodes actually know your IP address.
I have assumed that only directly connected nodes know each others ip addresses and all messages are being routed recursive through the DHT instead of iteratively. But you could still do a “DHT walk” and collect the IPs of the elders?
this would get harder the bigger the network gets.
the network could allow DHT walks in only one direction, towards the requesting nodes ID, so that a node can find its place in the network, but not collect addresses that easily?! edit: Maybe even prevent walks all together by routing “join” messages to the destination section and responding with an encrypted message containing the needed ip addresses to the new node?
These enhanced FATF rules are already released and potentially pose a much greater threat to Safe Network node operators than few copyright laws. The stakes are much higher.
The new updates would alter this dramatically, encouraging heightened restrictions and surveillance on virtual asset service providers, or VASPs. The latest guidance includes expansion on what constitutes VASPS, and could potentially be interpreted as including Lightning Network node operators. This type of categorization would require participants to collect vast amounts of information on the activities of others, and could essentially prohibit KYC-free use of decentralized networks.
The regime that FATF built is adopted by pretty much all countries (see this thread)… and they ratchet up pressure to enforce the rules with increasingly aggressive penalties and country level sanctions. That last link cites OKEx, which is now shutting down under the impossible strain of FATF rules. FATF proponents are actually celebrating this achievement - mission accomplished.
Decentralised networks of value threaten existing financial interests that FATF represents. Now they are extending their proposed legislation for mass country adoption to target decentralised node operators. The last thing we want is a massive coordinated multi-country sweep crackdown on all Safe Node elders for running “unlicensed money transmitter” nodes. This is certainly what FATF are aiming to achieve with their new above and beyond rules just for Crypto. Anything Safe Network tech stack can do to keep these small minded bureaucrats protecting outdated business models at bay is a worthwhile investment, IMO.
They want privacy coins delisted, I believe it was you pointed this out to me some time ago.
Yet maid is still listed, also xmr on some large exchanges.
Maybe there is a problem, what is your solution?
Edit.
Okex enabled fiat support, maid will not offer fiat, so I don’t think we’ll have a target on our backs, we will be token transmitters, which is just not money by any stretch.
They don’t chase btc transmitters do they.
Omni maid is not a privacy coin. No new privacy coin has been listed on a major exchange since the rules have been implemented AFAIK.
Perhaps read the post again you missed some major plot points. The fresh rules design just for “virtual asset service providers” do potentially target lightning node btc transmitters. Have they done so yet? No, these are fresh brand new rules, yet to implemented by member states let alone enforced. Member states have not rejected any of their “recommendations” (with-sanctions if you do not comply) yet, however.
Potential solutions were being discussed by much more qualified people above, @dirvine and others. I was only pointing out that the main threat is a not just a few uncoordinated mismatched copyright laws in a smattering of countries, but a much larger, unified and insidious one coming right down the pike.
As I pointed out these rules are fresh off the press tailored to bring our sector to heel. There are no certainties here. All we can do is consider the trajectory FATF have previously taken with enforcement (Hint: it has been extremely aggressive there is a lot at stake for the legacy financial system), and watch how their new for-crypto-only rules are rolled out and enforced. Korea and Japan usually go first they have been the quickest adopters. Personally I see they have made their intent more than clear. IF it ever becomes a problem for lightning node operators, then knowing that Safe node design options have been put in place to deal with the threat is a positive and also in line with the SAFE name, don’t you think @bones?
Of course I do, it just seemed a little to me like fear mongering, the current fatf guidelines are changed to target exchanges, or businesses sending to un verified crypto wallets and ppl running things like lightning nodes who provide liquidity , none of which is part of sn.
If that was so it would also mean ppl wrapping a btc block would be within the scope of current fatf guidelines, and the article does not say they are, so I disagree with your analysis there.
There is fear mongering, and then there is being aware of the threat actors. I only chimed in as the discussion above was only considering threats to node Elders from the point of view of copyright law.
Your discounting the potential of this possible threat. Sure, I respect that. Let’s watch this space I hope your right.
I wouldn’t put it past them making new laws to target us, but you can’t concern yourself with every possible threat to come.
The fight for freedom will always have casualties unfortunately, its not for the faint hearted, but a fight worth fighting to my mind.
