Legal revision of the new bitcoin.org

[blockgenesis]

Hi there,

A lot of work has been done to upgrade our current website bitcoin.org. The new one contains a lot of texts. And consequently, if any of you have some legal expertise, it would be appreciated that you read the texts and give us your thoughts and feedback.

http://bitcoin.org/

Thanks in advance,

[Monster Tent]

This is nice. I dont know about the "issuing money" section. That could be tricky.

[blockgenesis]

This is nice. I dont know about the "issuing money" section. That could be tricky.

Thanks! Do you think that using "issuing Bitcoins" instead of "issuing money" would be a good way to handle this?

[Severian]

Thanks! Do you think that using "issuing Bitcoins" instead of "issuing money" would be a good way to handle this?

Most definitely. The site looks great. It's clean and accessible.

[blockgenesis]

From the "about" page, what if we transform this :

"Bitcoin is designed around the idea of using cryptography to control the creation and transfer of money, rather than relying on central authorities."

to this :

"Bitcoin is designed around the idea of a new form of money that uses cryptography to control its creation and transactions, rather than relying on central authorities."

[rdymac]

In my opinion it has too many elements in the front page (even though is has lees than a few days ago). UI is really bad and UX geta worse with that many possible actions and elements in the first look.

[sunnankar]

Good job so far.

CHANGES
Bitcoin is an open-source cryptographic protocol that enables users to:
* send any amount of bitcoins
* to any other user
* anywhere in the world
* at anytime
* without any risk of seizure, fraud or chargebacks
* for extremely low (about $0.005) or zero processing fees
* and much more!

Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority where the network collectively and strictly regulates the issuance of bitcoins and verifies transactions which transfer them between users.

These unique value transfer properties has given rise to what some consider to be the first digital censorship-resistant currency and empowers users to do things not previously possible.

This free software is a community-driven open source project and released under the MIT license.

[Remove: at the top the grey text "= { An Open Digital Currency }"]

[Include: the We Use Coins video somewhere on the homepage]

REASONS
Notice the weasel words, 'what some consider'. Bitcoin.org should not assert that Bitcoin or bitcoins are a currency. 'Currency' is a legal term of art and like the word 'funds' can invoke some nasty sections of law. Currently, Bitcoin and bitcoins are clearly neither 'currency' nor 'funds' under applicable statutes, like 31 USC 5103, because the standard to be 'currency' and 'funds' is usually that is must be legal tender.

Sure, it may walk like a duck and quack like a duck but currently Bitcoin is not a duck. Jon Matonis and I have repeatedly emphasized this.

[sunnankar]

I don't see any legal definition of currency, only United States currency.  Bitcoin is obviously a currency.

31 USC 5111-5122.

The issue you are raising is whether Bitcoin is currency? Please provide an applicable rule and analysis before you present your conclusion.

And neither are Bitcoin or bitcoins 'funds' as applied under prepaid access rules.

[sunnankar]

I don't see any legal definition of currency, only United States currency.  Bitcoin is obviously a currency.

31 USC 5111-5122.

The issue you are raising is whether Bitcoin is currency? Please provide an applicable rule and analysis before you present your conclusion.

And neither are Bitcoin or bitcoins 'funds' as applied under prepaid access rules.

cur·ren·cy 

/ˈkərənsē/

Noun


1.A system of money in general use in a particular country.
2.The fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.
 
 
"currency" would include things like trademarks, a reputation, etc.  The number of coins under your name in this forum is '\"currency" because some people use it to evaluate your posts. 

...

Again, Bitcoin is covered because it substitutes for (United States) currency.

 ...

From what I can see that for all practical applications Bitcoin is covered under every regulation and requirement under all these rules and definitions.  You can try to split hairs and claim that Bitcoin does not fit some specific definition somewhere but that position has no practical application in the real world.

This is the Legal subforum not the Economics or Dictionary subforum.

When attempting to define money, currency or funds then authoritative sources would be Constitutions, Statutes, court decisions, etc. for determining the rule or definition.

Do you see through a legal lense, do you have any legal training?

The whole prepaid access area of law is based on substitutes for legal tender currency and applies to things like gift cards, gift certificates, etc. that are denominated in USD funds.

Your reasoning that Bitcoin is covered because it substitutes for US currency is flawed because Bitcoin is not denominated in USD. You are attempting to use substitute to apply to value and not to funds, because there are none!, which is a completely inappropriate way to read the word with the legislation.

Perhaps you do not understand what lawyers do so I will tell you a little story. A law professor asked his class, "What is the difference between medical school and law school?" Then he held up his hand and said, "In medical school you learn and memorize all the bones and veins in the hand. But in law school you learn to ask, 'Is this is hand? Why is it not a foot?'"

To be honest you do not think like a lawyer but much more like a mathematician or engineer. Don't worry; thinking like a lawyer is very counter-intuitive.

[blockgenesis]

This raises serious thoughts, because even the video you suggested to add (weusecoins) starts with what?

"Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency" Ugh..

And what is the Bitcoin foudation goal with huge bold letters in the index page?

"Bitcoin Foundation standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide." Ugh..

I'm going to ask a second opinion on this soon. But I think that is an important concern. And if using currency and money is wrong, we are already in the wrong boat and not only bitcoin.org would need to be fixed.

This might have been discussed before, but if we don't use money or currency anywhere, we will need to find another term. Because to my knowledge, Bitcoin cannot live forever in a grey area that fits no category..

[sunnankar]

I'm going to ask a second opinion on this soon. But I think that is an important concern. And if using currency and money is wrong

....

Because to my knowledge, Bitcoin cannot live forever in a grey area that fits no category..

Currently, I do not think it is a material enough to comb through and eliminate any references to money or currency. We are talking about differences between legal and dictionary definitions. But on the homepage it might be good to set the proper tone off the bat.

I think many will be surprised how long Bitcoin lives in the legal grey area that fits no category because it will be extremely difficult for legislators to craft legislation to apply to Bitcoin that will pass Constitutional muster by not being void for vagueness or overbroad.

For example, if this were a statute then it would be overly broad, violate due process by not providing sufficient notice and would therefore be unconstitutional.

"currency" would include things like trademarks, a reputation, etc.  The number of coins under your name in this forum is '\"currency" because some people use it to evaluate your posts. 

[sunnankar]

You can't seem to point to any issue with the things I posted except to make some claim I do not think like an attorney.  Anyone can read the fincen rules and see that, while they are unclear in sections, they are clearly meant to cover things such as Bitcoin.  As I understand it businesses like BitInstant spend a lot on lawyers and they came to the same conclusion.  I would not want to be in a position of going into a federal court to split hairs argue Bitcoin transactions do not apply to the rules.  I think the judge will use the duck analogy and will not listen to the hair splitting.  Without a court decision or official decision from fincen it is negligence to claim to people that the rules do not apply.

I don't see how the wording in a video is going to somehow change the legal analysis of Bitcoin.  Everybody knows what it is and how it works so some video put out by some organization will have zero effect on whether a specific regulation applies or not.

The FINcen rules are intended to cover things like gift cards, gift certificates, etc. that are denominated in USD.

They are not intended to cover things like ebooks, text files or random strings of characters which do not represent a claim on USD in anyway and instead might easily be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment like in Berstein vs US.

BitInstant's lawyers come to conclusions based on different facts; facts that include USD and USD denominated financial instruments.

Judges listen to hair splitting; that is their job. Bitcoin raises a tremendous number of legal issues. And the more one digs the more hairs to split.

Your assertion that everybody knows what Bitcoin is is patently false as there are many people who have never even heard of Bitcoin. Additionally, of those who have heard of it only a small percentage have the technical competence to understand how it works.

[benjamindees]

So, still no backing for the claim that "currency" has some precise legal definition in the US?

Right, that's because it doesn't.  "Currency" and "money" are both terms that pre-date the US, and which the US government is completely powerless to re-define.  That's the reason they use other terms like "funds" and "stored value" to describe their private fiat ponzi-tokens.

As I've pointed out before, "currency" and "money" do have distinct definitions.  But the only one that has any potential legal ramifications is "money," which implies future value.  It is much better for Bitcoin to officially be described only as "currency," which has absolutely no legal implications in the US.

[jubalix]

Having had the pleasure of doing the law of banking as part of my LLB,
simply because I was interested in FRB/FIAT/APRA/RBA/BASEL etc....

stay away from terms like bank, money, currency, adi, deposit, spend, securities, transactions etc, it will make it harder of authorities to go after you....but as some one said ITT courts will gloss over this if their political masters want it to happen....

but I would be construing the whole system as way to send secure messages (that can only be onsent once having received), where people may agree to do things having received those secure messages, or they may not. A person may chose not to sell you anything if you send them a "message".

I realize that his would be really hard to draw people into BTC/Crypto....but it may also be hard to legislate against in this form as the legislation would effective cover emails as well, which is not  going to happen.

Anyway the longer you keeps the Govts out, and the harder you make it for them to grapple with, the more likely it will be too late for them.....

[HiveLibrary]

REASONS
Notice the weasel words, 'what some consider'. Bitcoin.org should not assert that Bitcoin or bitcoins are a currency. 'Currency' is a legal term of art and like the word 'funds' can invoke some nasty sections of law. Currently, Bitcoin and bitcoins are clearly neither 'currency' nor 'funds' under applicable statutes, like 31 USC 5103, because the standard to be 'currency' and 'funds' is usually that is must be legal tender.

I don't see any legal definition of currency, only United States currency.  Bitcoin is obviously a currency.

A currency is a current, a flow of economic energy. Bitcoin is no such thing. Bitcoin is a security service for transactions. These could be money or it could be data transfers in a power plant. It is a security service. The coins could be used as an instruction rather than a reward.

[jubalix]

To be honest you do not think like a lawyer but much more like a mathematician or engineer. Don't worry; thinking like a lawyer is very counter-intuitive.

You can't seem to point to any issue with the things I posted except to make some claim I do not think like an attorney.  Anyone can read the fincen rules and see that, while they are unclear in sections, they are clearly meant to cover things such as Bitcoin.  As I understand it businesses like BitInstant spend a lot on lawyers and they came to the same conclusion.  I would not want to be in a position of going into a federal court to split hairs argue Bitcoin transactions do not apply to the rules.  I think the judge will use the duck analogy and will not listen to the hair splitting.  Without a court decision or official decision from fincen it is negligence to claim to people that the rules do not apply.

I don't see how the wording in a video is going to somehow change the legal analysis of Bitcoin.  Everybody knows what it is and how it works so some video put out by some organization will have zero effect on whether a specific regulation applies or not.
[/quote]


As both a Lawyer and Engineer, let me say that this is the problem with the Law not Engineering.


The law is not logical, and fraught with inconsistency, uncertainty and poor/lazy judges, decisions, systems and access.

Engineering is ruled by the purity of maths, it goes wrong, it breaks. In law it goes wrong, the wrong party suffers, rarely the judge, or legal system.

I hope BTC can strip away the inefficiencies of the legal system

[benjamindees]

A currency is a current, a flow of economic energy.

Currency is a flow, but it isn't a flow of anything but the medium of exchange itself.  Currency refers to "general acceptance".  A medium has "currency" when it is generally accepted and used;  it "flows".  While legal tender is usually generally accepted, it is not always.  Take Zimbabwe for example.