|
Title: What U.S. Regulations Apply to Bitcoins as Commodities? Post by: is4tomj on February 20, 2012, 03:46:17 PM Hi, below is a link to a blog post on what U.S. regulations apply to bitcoins as commodities.
http://blog.bitcointitan.com/post/17789738826/what-u-s-regulations-apply-to-bitcoins-as-commodities Title: Re: What U.S. Regulations Apply to Bitcoins as Commodities? Post by: JDBound on February 20, 2012, 04:49:23 PM ...to bitcoins as commodities. Quote Bitcoins are commodities. ...A thing is tangible if it is “[c]apable of being possessed or realized; readily apprehensible by the mind; real; substantial; evident.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary; See Williams v Board of Comrs. 84 Kan 508, 114 P 858. Bitcoins are clearly useful articles of commerce capable of being possessed. This is pure conjecture. While some amount of speculation on potential juridical outcomes can be constructive, making such statements in conclusory terms like you have can only lead to confusion on this issue. As I am sure you are aware, there is no case, nor any pending litigation which purports to give an opinion on the issues you raise here. I suggest you rework some of your phrasing to reflect this reality. Title: Re: What U.S. Regulations Apply to Bitcoins as Commodities? Post by: is4tomj on February 20, 2012, 06:55:17 PM ...to bitcoins as commodities. Quote Bitcoins are commodities. ...A thing is tangible if it is “[c]apable of being possessed or realized; readily apprehensible by the mind; real; substantial; evident.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary; See Williams v Board of Comrs. 84 Kan 508, 114 P 858. Bitcoins are clearly useful articles of commerce capable of being possessed. This is pure conjecture. While some amount of speculation on potential juridical outcomes can be constructive, making such statements in conclusory terms like you have can only lead to confusion on this issue. As I am sure you are aware, there is no case, nor any pending litigation which purports to give an opinion on the issues you raise here. I suggest you rework some of your phrasing to reflect this reality. Thank you for your comment and concern. Conclusions are a part of legal writing. Conclusory means offering a conclusion without supporting evidence. As you will see, even from just from the paragraph you quoted, my conclusions are supported by legal arguments, and properly cite legally authoritative sources. I think people are comfortable with the idea that bitcoins are used in commerce, however, I am surprised that people do not inherently realize that bitcoins are capable of being possessed. I will supplement that paragraph shortly with further citation to U.S. code and cases where digital articles, e.g., electronic chattel paper, U.S. dollars distributed electronically, contracts, illicit pictures on a hard drive. Title: Re: What U.S. Regulations Apply to Bitcoins as Commodities? Post by: is4tomj on February 20, 2012, 10:02:50 PM I updated my blog post to further elaborate on how bitcoins are capable of being possessed.
Title: Re: What U.S. Regulations Apply to Bitcoins as Commodities? Post by: FXTradingPro on June 27, 2018, 03:03:55 AM If this determination had been made on the part of the CFTC. Then all of the exchanges that are offering Bitcoin trading within the US would be required to be members of the NFA National Futures Association and would fall under the CFTC. There is no category yet for crypto brokers like there is for a futures broker FCM (Futures Commision Merchant) or a forex broker (RFED) Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer.
|