Since it's illegal in both Germany and US to run an unlicensed money transmitter service, and ChipMixer was running in just about both countries, it's pretty much certain that it did break the law.
I have nowhere stated that there are no laws that prohibit such activity. I have merely argued there is no law that prohibits mixing, which is true as far as I'm concerned. In no court have I ever seen mixing being equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service's product. You can practically mix coins yourself, with absolutely no other users, even though it's not recommended for your privacy. But it is, and can obfuscate in an extent. Coinjoining is neither money transmitting.
I have nowhere stated that there are no laws that prohibit such activity. I have merely argued there is no law that prohibits mixing, which is true as far as I'm concerned. In no court have I ever seen mixing being equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service's product. You can practically mix coins yourself, with absolutely no other users, even though it's not recommended for your privacy. But it is, and can obfuscate in an extent. Coinjoining is neither money transmitting.
Protocols themselves can't be classified as "money transmitting businesses". They're decentralized (non-custodial) by design. The law only applies to individuals running a mixing service all by themselves (centralized, custodial). I guess that's the reason why the US government has been hunting down centralized crypto mixers lately.
If mixer operators had a "money transmitting license" and followed KYC/AML rules, they would've nothing to fear. But that would greatly undermine a user's privacy/anonymity. Thus, decentralized (non-custodial) mixing would become the norm in the future. I'm fine with that as long as financial freedom and privacy is preserved. Just my opinion
