Are Bitcoins Securities Under U.S. Law?

[JDBound]

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-commodities

Please 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.

[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-commodities

Please 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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[RaggedMonk]

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]

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]

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.

[Boussac]

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