From her replies to the comments you could say that Yves Smith the author is an arrogant muttonhead with deluded pretensions of authority. She has no interest in learning how Bitcoin works and then shouts down arguments against her article by just saying "FinCEN said so". Yves Smith is in the same camp of deranged journalists as Leah McGrath Goodman. Journalism is in a sad sad situation.
Yves Smith said
You are really behind on this issue. Go read our summary of FinCEN’s and the IRS’s position on this.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency.htmlThe fact that people will trade goods with tangible value for Bitcoin means it is NOT just messages. It has been ascribed value, like collectable baseball cards, and hence is property. You can call it whatever you want, but don’t expect courts and the tax man to follow your views. There’s a well established legal and regulatory framework for commercial transactions, and it’s not as hard as you think to slot where Bitcoin fits in.
FinCEN, and the IRS is pretty sure to follow, regards Bitcoin as tradeable property. You don’t have a vote in this.
and
You clearly did not bother to read the post, so I don’t see why I should keep spoon feeding some who chooses to be obtuse. And your “literally just messages” is a further illustration. I could just as easily say, “An ebook is just messages” but people ascribe value to them, pay for them, hence they are property.
This was in the post:
Further, the security interest will remain with the bitcoins through subsequent transfers (UCC § 9-325). A remote transferee of the bitcoins will take the bitcoins subject to the bank’s security interest. Assuming the bank has taken the easy steps to perfect its security interest, which it almost always will have, the bank can seize the bitcoins as collateral if the bakery’s debt goes unpaid. The possibility of another party with superior property interest in a bitcoin would seem to substantially dampen their utility as a medium of exchange….
…consider the example of the bakery and the supplier. After the bank calls the bakery’s loan and gets a judgment against the bakery, it conducts discovery to see where the bakery’s bitcoins went. The bakery will be compelled to testify as to the identity of the supplier. Then the supplier will be compelled to testify as to the present contents of the supplier’s bitcoin account. If the supplier fraudulently transfers the coins before the bank can seize them, the supplier is liable to the bank — in real dollars
and
I said I didn’t see any point in indulging you further but you couldn’t take “no” for an answer, could you?. You’ve gone from possibly being thick-headed to making it clear you are a troll.
The private key is not the consideration. That’s like saying the license key is the software.
Go hire a UCC expert and educate yourself.
