|
JDBound
|
 |
February 20, 2012, 05:00:54 PM |
|
To me it seems like if bitcoin is not a currency, and if it's not security (investment contract), then is bitcoin then a commodity? Seems like you didn't mention anything about commodities, probably for some unmentioned reason. In The Good Wife the lawyers also argued that bitcoin was a commodity.
Bitcoin is a commodity under U.S. law. I have posted the legal analysis and included a discussion on U.S. regulations of commodities on my blog. http://blog.bitcointitan.com/post/17789738826/what-u-s-regulations-apply-to-bitcoins-as-commoditiesPlease cite an opinion which states this holding. I am not sure what you are looking for. I cited to U.S. codes and cases throughout the entire article. Right, no cases or statutory material conclude that Bitcoin is a commodity. If I am incorrect on this point please direct me to your source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is4tomj (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
|
|
February 20, 2012, 05:13:30 PM
Last edit: February 20, 2012, 05:34:01 PM by is4tomj |
|
To me it seems like if bitcoin is not a currency, and if it's not security (investment contract), then is bitcoin then a commodity? Seems like you didn't mention anything about commodities, probably for some unmentioned reason. In The Good Wife the lawyers also argued that bitcoin was a commodity.
Bitcoin is a commodity under U.S. law. I have posted the legal analysis and included a discussion on U.S. regulations of commodities on my blog. http://blog.bitcointitan.com/post/17789738826/what-u-s-regulations-apply-to-bitcoins-as-commoditiesPlease cite an opinion which states this holding. I am not sure what you are looking for. I cited to U.S. codes and cases throughout the entire article. Right, no cases or statutory material conclude that Bitcoin is a commodity. If I am incorrect on this point please direct me to your source. You are correct, that is why I wrote about it. Otherwise, I would have made a single paragraph post. The purpose of citing sources is to form an argument. You will find that very few cases exactly match the facts of any other case or situation that you are asked to argue. U.S. courts recognize that as technology and society progress and evolve the law adapts by making analogies to current statues and prior cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
JDBound
|
|
February 20, 2012, 05:37:12 PM |
|
Stating "Bitcoin is a commodity under U.S. law." is a conclusion. It is not "form[ing] an argument". I would request that you rephrase your posts accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 21, 2012, 03:25:43 AM |
|
Not sure who you are addressing, but there was an argument made and evidence to support it as a commodity. In reality, Bitcoin is a list of answers to math problems in various forms. Believing they are commodities, currency, or securities requires mental gymnastics and big pretty words that make school books expensive.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Jonathan Ryan Owens
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 392
Merit: 252
|
|
February 22, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Last edit: February 22, 2012, 11:56:55 PM by Jonathan Ryan Owens |
|
Gentlemen, I'm just a fake caveman lawyer, so when I came across this Cryptographic Juris Doctor, I was compelled to ask for his opinion on the debate in this thread, and the article(s) and opinion of OP. For your edification: Bitcoin Lawyer |
|
|
|
|
nybble41
|
|
February 29, 2012, 02:37:54 AM |
|
The reason bitcoins are so hard to classify is that they simply don't exist. They are not physical objects, locations, or data, or even legal obligations, like contracts.
The only thing which actually exists is a distributed ledger with entries along the lines of "X bitcoins are now controlled by the private key identified by address Y". These "bitcoins" are merely placeholders, however. They could stand for anything--dollars, cars, ounces of gold, acres of land. In practice they're just abstract units which can only be defined in terms of themselves.
You might as well try to determine the legal classification of the number one.
|
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 29, 2012, 06:47:34 AM |
|
The reason bitcoins are so hard to classify is that they simply don't exist. They are not physical objects, locations, or data, or even legal obligations, like contracts.
The only thing which actually exists is a distributed ledger with entries along the lines of "X bitcoins are now controlled by the private key identified by address Y". These "bitcoins" are merely placeholders, however. They could stand for anything--dollars, cars, ounces of gold, acres of land. In practice they're just abstract units which can only be defined in terms of themselves.
You might as well try to determine the legal classification of the number one.
Because the private keys can be in many places at once, they don't have a location until someone "spends" one. It's like quantum money. |
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
|
RaggedMonk
|
|
March 05, 2012, 11:45:46 PM |
|
Because the private keys can be in many places at once, they don't have a location until someone "spends" one. It's like quantum money.
This is a very interesting sentence. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Boussac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1220
Merit: 1015
e-ducat.fr
|
|
March 06, 2012, 09:48:32 PM |
|
Because the private keys can be in many places at once, they don't have a location until someone "spends" one. It's like quantum money.
This is a very interesting sentence. Thanks. OK now Werner Heisenberg is haunting this forum |
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
March 07, 2012, 05:24:50 PM |
|
Because the private keys can be in many places at once, they don't have a location until someone "spends" one. It's like quantum money.
This is a very interesting sentence. Thanks. OK now Werner Heisenberg is haunting this forum Maybe so, and his name is Satoshi Nakamoto. Like Heisenberg, he also deserves a Nobel nomination. |
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Boussac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1220
Merit: 1015
e-ducat.fr
|
|
March 10, 2012, 11:50:12 AM |
|
Because the private keys can be in many places at once, they don't have a location until someone "spends" one. It's like quantum money.
This is a very interesting sentence. Thanks. OK now Werner Heisenberg is haunting this forum Maybe so, and his name is Satoshi Nakamoto. Like Heisenberg, he also deserves a Nobel nomination. +1 However what are the odds that any of these guys ever 1/ predicted the invention of something like bitcoin, 2/ studied bitcoin, 3/ undestood its potential ? Zero, zilch, nada ? The Economic Sciences Prize Committee 2012 (condoning the System since 1969) Members: Per Krusell (Chairman) Professor of Economics Tore Ellingsen Professor of Economics Torsten Persson Professor of Economics Mats Persson Professor of Economics Peter Gärdenfors Professor of Cognitive Science Peter Englund (Secretary) Professor of Banking and Insurance |
|
|
|
|
