[New_California]

You are incorrect. The miner does not intermediate transactions in any way, shape or form.

Firstly, miners do not technically intermediate transactions. Transactions are fixed and sealed by the parties involved and can't be modified. Transferred funds are never in a possession of a miner, not even briefly. Miner can't take them, can't redirect them, can't change the amount, etc.

Secondly, it's not a specific miner that confirms the transaction. It is the ever-growing group of miners. Transaction finality is ever only probabilistic. If you think picking by law the "first" miner then this is completely arbitrary and 1-block chain tips are routinely orphaned in all cryptocurrencies.

Finally, many persons and businesses accept unconfirmed (not mined) transactions, for relatively low-risk goods and services.

If you really want to regulate miners (which is making a crime running certain algorithms on your personal computer - a terrible idea), then at least please come up with a new name and new framework, because "money transmitter" or "financial intermediary" is simply incorrect.

[lottin]

They move money from one party to another by updating a ledger. That's what money transmitters do. Not being in possession of the funds, or the fact that the specific entity that moves the funds is chosen at random, doesn't change the fact that they're money transmitters.

[from]

It's a real shame the Treasury Department officially disagrees with you in spite of the fact that there a lot of hardliners there (likely the same types who think e-gold was a money transmitter) who would love to agree with you.