Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:32:44 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Support U.S. HR 1098 Free Competition in Currency Act  (Read 1929 times)
terroh8er
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 07:55:38 AM
 #21

It will never get out of the committee, so it doesn't matter. Ron Paul isn't taken seriously by politicians (but he should be) and he is sadly retiring in 2012

1GswQ3oJA4boyVMYQ31vahb2ZQ7qTPksTR
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480926764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480926764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480926764
Reply with quote  #2

1480926764
Report to moderator
reubgr
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 15, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
 #22

@CryptoCommodity: Others have made the same comment you have regarding fiat vs. not. See http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6247. I agreed to change it in the next draft, but its far from a "fatal flaw" when in the same paragraph I clearly explain what I mean by that term. Your argument regarding bitcoins not being a security is not convincing because you are not engaged in legal analysis. Instead, you are saying, "does this feel like a security? Obviously not." That kind of thinking is relevant and and important but never dispositive. Instead, one must turn to the language of the statute itself, the relevant cases that have interpreted those statutes, and legislative history and other clues that help indicate what the legislatures purpose was. Another lawyer has written a post disagreeing with my conclusion about bitcoins being a security, but he used the same methods I did: methodical legal analysis. See http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/06/26/why-bitcoin-isnt-a-security-under-federal-securities-law/.

@Big Time Coin: If you had taken a look at my paper you would have seen that I thoroughly covered the Liberty Dollar "travesty." In fact, I looked at the laws and the case filings. I called the prosecutor and also spoke to Bernard von NotHaus. That case has _nothing_ to do with alternative currencies. It's about NotHaus and his associates defrauding people. More importantly, if _you_ had read the counterfeiting statutes that the Act refers to, you would see that they all only apply to metal money and have no application to Bitcoin. Thus, their repeal is irrelevant to Bitcoin.

MsBitcoin's response to your last paragraph is on point. Nothing in Ron Paul's act would be directly relevant to bitcoins except the repeal of legal tender laws. Even the tax section likely does not apply to bitcoins because that section is clearly aimed at _metal_ coins. The only general word in that list is "coin" and when reading statutes, general words are generally read to be limited by those in a list with it. Thus, the fact that bitcoin has the word "coin" in it is irrelevant.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!