New EU directive on electronic money - 2009/110/EG

[Timo Y]

Will BTC fall under new regulations for electronic money when this Directive comes into effect?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:267:0007:0017:EN:PDF

Article 2(2)

‘electronic money’ means electronically, including
magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a
claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for
the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in
point 5 of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is
accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic
money issuer;

Bitcoin does not confer any kind of claim, whether on the "issuer" (be it an exchange or a miner), the developers, or any other Bitcoin user.  Neither it is issued on receipt of funds.

So it seems to me that BTC does not fulfil the directive's definition of "electronic money" and that legally it should be considered an electronic commodity.

However, if it does, this directive would imply that an amateur cannot legally mine Bitcoins!

[MoonShadow]

It was bound to happen.

[kiba]

It won't be long before EU try to regulate bitcoin too!

Damn governments. Alway thinks that they have the right to regulate everything and anything.

[grondilu]

Damn governments. Alway thinks that they have the right to regulate everything and anything.

+1

F.ck.ng b.st.rds.   I hate them.

[ploum]

Bitcoin does not confer any kind of claim, whether on the "issuer" (be it an exchange or a miner), the developers, or any other Bitcoin user.  Neither it is issued on receipt of funds.

It is if you are trading bitcoin for money.  The whole market of bitcoin is not affected by the definition but the real money/bitcoin interface will. As a consequence, bitcoin *is* electronic money as long as someone is willing to buy it for real money.

So it seems to me that BTC does not fulfil the directive's definition of "electronic money" and that legally it should be considered an electronic commodity.

They were quite clever in the definition. It's commodity only if the "issuer" accept it against goods or services. Meaning that pre-payed accound and stuffs like that are not affected.

However, if it does, this directive would imply that an amateur cannot legally mine Bitcoins!

Not a big problem : how will they proove that you generated bitcoin ? Also, if I understood correctly, this would not be a problem anymore as soon as all bitcoin are generated, isn't it ?

What are the other consequences of such a law ? For example, what does it imply for MtGox if they were in EU ?

[ploum]

I'm also wondering if this affects Flattr (which is EU based)

[Anonymous]

 Bitcoin is the perfect vehicle for bribery of public officials. Because they are so corrupt they should embrace it.

>insert sarcasm


The moral of the story -When you can pay off politicians with bitcoins they might view things differently.

[FreeMoney]

It is if you are trading bitcoin for money.  The whole market of bitcoin is not affected by the definition but the real money/bitcoin interface will. As a consequence, bitcoin *is* electronic money as long as someone is willing to buy it for real money.

I've seen this claim on the boards before. Do you think this directive really applies to anything that can be sold for money? So pancakes, flowers, and kisses ARE money if someone trades them for money?

[ploum]

I've seen this claim on the boards before. Do you think this directive really applies to anything that can be sold for money? So pancakes, flowers, and kisses ARE money if someone trades them for money?

If you buy pancakes and that they can be used in other unrelated places to "buy" goods or services, then those pancakes are money.

The difference is that, at least, you can eat your pancake. With Euro, dollars or bitcoins, you can't.

[ribuck]

With Bitcoin, where is the "claim on the issuer" referred to in article 2(2)?

[FreeMoney]

I've seen this claim on the boards before. Do you think this directive really applies to anything that can be sold for money? So pancakes, flowers, and kisses ARE money if someone trades them for money?

If you buy pancakes and that they can be used in other unrelated places to "buy" goods or services, then those pancakes are money.

The difference is that, at least, you can eat your pancake. With Euro, dollars or bitcoins, you can't.

Okay, in my house and at least one other pancakes are traded for many things including oz of OJ and sexual favors so I guess they are money now.

[grondilu]

I've seen this claim on the boards before. Do you think this directive really applies to anything that can be sold for money? So pancakes, flowers, and kisses ARE money if someone trades them for money?

If you buy pancakes and that they can be used in other unrelated places to "buy" goods or services, then those pancakes are money.

The difference is that, at least, you can eat your pancake. With Euro, dollars or bitcoins, you can't.

Okay, in my house and at least one other pancakes are traded for many things including oz of OJ and sexual favors so I guess they are money now.

In addition to that, I think it's amazing that a law can forbid an action not regarding what this action "is", but only regarding what it is "claimed" to be.  It's like punishing "intention", not "acts".  In french that's what we call a "délit d'intention".  I very much think such a thing is unconstitutionnal.

What people have in mind is never a crime.  Crime is what people do, not the reason why they do it.

[Anonymous]

[nelisky]

Now try to make a hat out of Bitcoins

[Anonymous]

Now try to make a hat out of Bitcoins

haha! I should have thought of that!