Recently in Dutch newspapers: "Bitcoin is not money in the Netherlands"

[zimmah]

Source: http://www.nu.nl/internet/3781345/bitcoin-geen-geld-in-nederland.html

Bitcoin geen geld in Nederland
Bitcoins zijn geen geld, maar hebben in Nederland de status van ruilmiddel.
Bitcoin geen geld in Nederland
Foto:  Bloomberg
Er zijn volgens een rechter in Almelo wel overeenkomsten met wettige betaalmiddelen, maar essentiële verschillen zorgen ervoor dat bitcoin niet geldig is als valuta.
De bitcoin heeft in Nederland eenzelfde soort status als goud en zilver, oordeelt de rechter.
De zaak draaide om een man die in augustus 2012 beloofde om 2.750 bitcoins te verkopen voor een prijs van ruim 22.000 euro, dus voor minder dan 10 euro per stuk. Hij leverde uiteindelijk slechts 990 bitcoins.
Sindsdien steeg de koers van de bitcoin zeer rap, tot een hoogtepunt van rond de 900 euro. Woensdag is één bitcoin ongeveer 360 euro waard. De 1.760 bitcoins die niet werden geleverd zouden nu dus ruim 600.000 euro waard zijn.
Valuta
De eiser in de zaak vroeg om een schadevergoeding van ruim 100.000 euro, als compensatie voor de gestegen koers. Als bitcoin wordt gezien als geld, zou de eiser inderdaad recht hebben op een vergoeding van de schade die is geleden door een koerswijziging in de tussentijd.
Bitcoin is echter geen geld omdat de digitale munt in een virtuele portemonnee wordt bewaard die eigendom van de gebruiker zelf is, en niet van een giro-instelling. "Naar het oordeel van de rechtbank is in geval van Bitcoins dan ook geen sprake van giraal geld", schrijft de rechter.
Bovendien is alleen de euro een wettig betaalmiddel in Nederland, en bevestigde minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Financiën) onlangs ook dat de Staat bitcoin niet ziet als een geldige valuta.
De eiser krijgt dus geen schadevergoeding naar aanleiding van de koerswijziging. Wel moet de waarde die de niet-geleverde bitcoins in 2012 hadden alsnog worden vergoed. Daarnaast wijst de rechtbank een schadevergoeding toe voor de koersstijging van de bitcoin tussen het aangaan en ontbinden van de verkoopovereenkomst, een periode van twee weken.
Welk missend ingrediënt maakt bitcoin een succes?
Wat is een bitcoin en hoe is de valuta ontstaan?

Translation:

Bitcoin is not money, but in the Netherlands they have the legal status of 'medium of exchange'.

Accoding to a judge in Almelo there are some similarities with legal media of exchange, but essential differences make it so bitcoin is not a currency.

Bitcoin has a similar status like gold and silver, is his judgement.

The case was about a man who promised in august 2012 to sell 2750 bitcoin for a price of over 22 000 euro. Less than 10 euro a coin. In the end he only delivered 990 bitcoin.

Since then, the value of bitcoin raised very rapidly, up till a high of 900 euros. Wednesday the price was about 360 euro. The 1760 that were not delivered would be worth over 600 000 euros today.

Currency

the pursuer in the case demanded a compensation of over 100 000 euro, as compensation for the rise in value. If bitcoin is seen as currency, the pursuer would be in his right to demand compensation for the losses suffered during a course change in the maintime.

Bitcoin is however not a currency because the digital coin is stored in a virtual wallet that is owned by the user himself, and not a bank. "To the judgement of the court bitcoin is not a case of scriptural money" writes the judge.

On top of that the euro is the only legal currency in the Netherlands, and minister of finance Jeroen Dijsselbloem confirmed recently that the state does not view bitcoin as a legal currency.

The pursuer will therefore not get compensation for the change in value. However the value of the coins at that time that were not delivered in 2012 must still be reimbursed. Next to that the court appoints a compensation for the change of value between the esstablishing and dissolving the contract. A period of two weeks.

[1714230495]

1714230495

[Beyonce]

It's still money regardless of what they say.

[bananaControl]

Bitcoin is however not a currency because the digital coin is stored in a virtual wallet that is owned by the user himself, and not a bank. "To the judgement of the court bitcoin is not a case of scriptural money" writes the judge.

Words can not describe how retarded this is. How the fuck can anyone take this "judge" seriously and not just laugh of the utter stupidity of it all?

This is just too stupid to even discuss. Period.

[wachtwoord]

Indeed, this was posted int he Dutch section a while ago. It's just some low judge making a mistake. It happens.

[bananaControl]

Indeed, this was posted int he Dutch section a while ago. It's just some low judge making a mistake. It happens.

That person is a danger to society and should not be in such a high position. Sweeping the floor might be more suitable for him, though on a second thought he might just end up hurting someone with the broom.

[wachtwoord]

Indeed, this was posted int he Dutch section a while ago. It's just some low judge making a mistake. It happens.

That person is a danger to society and should not be in such a high position. Sweeping the floor might be more suitable for him, though on a second thought he might just end up hurting someone with the broom.

He's in a low-level judge position. There are many many people with a similar level of insight in such positions worldwide. Don't overestimate judges.

[franky1]

why treat this negatively guys.. please see beyond the fog of propaganda.

1. by declaring it 'money' (legal tender) that means automatically declaring the Euro dead. so no judge would declare it money in their jurisdiction.. get over it and accept it
2. by NOT declaring it money, means that there is no need for money transmission licences for handling bitcoins.. positive
3. by NOT declaring it money, means that regulators wont chase after you. as its not a financial crime to touch bitcoin. instead scammers / illicit websites / dodgy exchanges that steal bitcoin will be treated as thieves, not fraudsters. which is easier for police to handle instead of hoping for regulators to deal with.
think about this. someone steals Eur500 from you. the police cannot do much as you have little evidence and financial crimes cause police more hassle and paperwork so less desire to get involved. now imagine someone stole a TV, its easier to find evidence and get the theif arrested. a TV is an asset, just like bitcoin. getting someone arrested for bitcoin thefts will be easier then euro thefts.


so treat this as positive news that euro regulators have no jurisdiction to control or licence bitcoin. but police can still pursue thefts.

[SOAD]

It's alarming how often judges are ignorant.

[zimmah]

i think it's a pretty retarded statement indeed to claim something is not a currency just because it's not help by a bank.

With that logic, money stored in a mattress is not money either.

[AdamWhite]

i think it's a pretty retarded statement indeed to claim something is not a currency just because it's not help by a bank.

With that logic, money stored in a mattress is not money either.

the point is, you can take that money in your mattress and deposit it in the bank

[Pobre]

i think it's a pretty retarded statement indeed to claim something is not a currency just because it's not help by a bank.

With that logic, money stored in a mattress is not money either.

Well thats not a retarded dtatement at all because currency is something which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. The btc is not issued by the government and hence it cannot be considered as a currency.

[Brooker]

It's alarming how often judges are ignorant.

Judges gonna judge. I doubt most judges are clued up on the cutting edge of technology.

[bitsmichel]

It's alarming how often judges are ignorant.

Judges gonna judge. I doubt most judges are clued up on the cutting edge of technology.

From my personal experience, most often they do not have any technical background. For example, they wouldn't know how to install a driver or what a DNS server does. 

[wachtwoord]

It's alarming how often judges are ignorant.

Judges gonna judge. I doubt most judges are clued up on the cutting edge of technology.

From my personal experience, most often they do not have any technical background. For example, they wouldn't know how to install a driver or what a DNS server does. 

Yes, judges usually let "experts" advice them. I've so often heard these experts speak on the news and have concluded that most of them are either ignorant or retarded.

[leopard2]

franky's right, if a major country declares it legal tender, it will go up 10 or 100 times and certainly become a major threat to fiat

outlawing is a bit like outlawing gold, an admission that fiat is dead, so the only solution is: don't ask don't tell, keep it suspended, call it property, that sort of thinkg...