General feedback on the research.

From what I have read over the last month, I lean towards the view that in legal terms bitcoin has to be considered as money. The logic is as follows.

If bitcoin is a commodity, then any contract on the exchange of bitcoin for a good would be considered as barter. Barter in the UK is not regulated under statute law, so on the commercial level, this creates a risk that such contract would have to be decided by old precedents which may not be fully accurate at present day. Meanwhile, if bitcoin is money, then it is just a normal sales contract, which is covered under the normal rules of Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Rights Act 2015. This would create a much more stable precedent system than if bitcoin is considered as a commodity.

On the same level, I fully understand the government's position on why not allow bitcoin to become a currency as this may infringe the security of the domestic currency. However, what if limit bitcoin to a certain level of its usage? In other words, parties have agreed, for their commercial transaction, to use bitcoins instead of the domestic currency. The court in any commercial dispute (for example claim in damages) would then just use bitcoin sum but the damages would be paid out in the domestic currency equivalent.

Hey everyone!

In my studies, I have come across a case involving Mt Gox. I know that some of the parties which suffered damage due to Mt Gox bankruptcy raised their case in the US. Specifically, I am looking for the case material involving Gregory Greene, who raised the action in the US District Court in Northern District Illinois around end of January 2014. I don't have anything on our UK system, may be someone has an access to the court materials in the US?

Well, I don't doubt the fact that crypto will become an important payment system. I would slightly correct you on the point of US. If bitcoin, for example, is considered as a commodity and it is used to exchange for another good, it would be barter and not a sales contract. A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price. Meanwhile, exchange of good A for a good B is barter.

So for example, if we agree that I will exchange some oil for something of yours (I don't know let's take pizza for example), this would be barter. If we replace oil with bitcoin, it would still be barter, if we follow the US position upon the crypto.

I hope that it makes sense...

Thank you very much for your response!

My work is due March 2019 so my work is going to be done around that time. And of course I will share it here, and if you would be interested I will send it to you when I am going to be done via email.

Once again, thank you very much for your response!

Sorry, I did a mistake in my post. The second view should be that it is an "obligation".

If u follow the view that it is a commodity, it is good for the industry (i.e. minimal regulation as the position can be very flexible). However, what if something goes wrong? What if the system will go bust? Essentially, how I so far see it, is that the system runs basically on the trust of bitcoin users and the economic forces such as supply and demand. Such approach creates high risks for crypto users... Or does it

Hey guys!

I am a 4th-year law student in the UK and want to write a dissertation on legal nature of cryptocurrency. There are 3 predominant ideas regarding the topic. Firstly, some lawyers see it as money. The second view is that it is an obligation. And the last one, and the position mainly taken in the US, is that it is a commodity (like diamonds or oil).

I don't know anything about cryptocurrencies, and maybe someone could help with starting the research or maybe with some expert opinion on the issue?

Thank u very much in advance for any help!

Hey guys!

I am a 4th-year law student in the UK and want to write a dissertation on legal nature of cryptocurrency. There are 3 predominant ideas regarding the topic. Firstly, some lawyers see it as money. The second view is that it is an obligation. And the last one, and the position mainly taken in the US, is that it is a commodity (like diamonds or oil).

I don't know anything about cryptocurrencies, and maybe someone could help with starting the research or maybe with some expert opinion on the issue?

Thank u very much in advance for any help!