Topic: 荷兰法院说比特币不是钱，而是交换媒介 (Read 1819 times)
现在各国对BTC还没有一个标准的界定
钱不也是一种交换媒介？一种进化了的交换媒介。
逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
比特币不是普通的交易媒介。逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
希望中国政府也是这么说的 
基本不可能
算好消息
希望中国政府也是这么说的
只要不是非法的就好 哈
钱不也就是交换媒介吗
13万欧元和1760欧元，相差可真大
希望中国也站出来定义一下
钱不也是一种交换媒介？一种进化了的交换媒介。
逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
比特币不是普通的交易媒介。 逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
算好消息还是坏消息呢
荷兰法院 真逗比 比特币不是钱而是交换媒介 我想问钱不也是交换媒介 这该怎么解释 
其实我们也不应该把比特币理解为钱，而是交换媒介，等比特币发展成熟了，自然就是一般等价物了，现在一步步来，别跑太快，否则央行打击你
货币都是从交换媒介进化的，可能比特币目前的情况并未发展到货币的阶段，但证明比特币作为支付手段是有效的，这很好
钱也好，交换媒介也好，总之有价值就好。
钱本身不就是物物交换的媒介 比特币不也可以交换 怎么不算钱了 人家只不过是虚拟钱而已 要不要这么欺负虚拟币
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
交换媒介就是钱，这个很多市民更听不懂。
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
比特是是自由货币 
比特币的确不是货币，他是交换媒介
央行早已经定义是收藏品，说比特币是钱，就是脑残。
中国法院出来说句话啊
钱本身就是一种交换媒介啊
这说法是有问题的
没有一个政府会承认的。
钱也是充当媒介的作用啊
来自Tweakers的报道，荷兰上艾瑟尔省法院曾表示，比特币不是钱，而是交换的媒介。
该结论来自一个案子，一个人答应用比特币交付支付一定的费用，但实际上只有部分比特币到账。
据粗略翻译，投诉人支付22000欧元购买2750比特币，但他说他只收到990 个比特币，随后诉讼开始，但什么是钱的定义变成一个问题。
（由于交换的比特币数量很大，这很可能发生在2012年底， 2013年初 – 价格暴涨之前）
如果法院的观点认为比特币是钱，鉴于汇率已明显上升，那么申诉人很可能有获得13万欧元的权利，因为这笔交易已经发生了。
但由于法院认为比特币是交换的只是一个媒介（其中许多人会认为比特币是钱） ，被告被迫支付1760欧元损失费，并扣除2700欧元法律费用。
上艾瑟尔省法院说，比特币不是“普通”的钱，也不是法定货币。
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
法院难道已经确定比特币不是钱，因为它不是有形的？有可能这就是很大的分歧点，我们这样认为。你怎么看呢？
你可以点击这里（荷兰）读取原来的文章。
A court in Overijssel, Netherland has said that bitcoin is not money, but rather a medium of exchange, according to a report from Tweakers.
The conclusion comes from a case against a person who promised to pay a fee for the delivery of bitcoins, but says that only part of the bitcoins were actually supplied.
According to a rough translation, the complainant paid 22,000 euros for 2750 bitcoin, but says he only received 990. Thereafter, the lawsuit was starts, and as such the definition of what money is came into question.
(Given the amount that was to be paid in exchange for the amount of bitcoins, this is likely to have happened in late 2012, early 2013 – before the massive price spike.)
Should bitcoin have been considered money in the view of the court, then the complainant would likely have the right to 130,000 euros, given the fact that the exchange rate had gone up considerably since the deal was made.
But since the court has considered bitcoin to be merely a medium of exchange (which many would consider as money), the defendant was forced to pay damages of 1760 euros in addition to legal fees of 2700 euros.
The court in Overijssel says that bitcoin is not “common” money, nor is it legal tender.
The question of whether bitcoin is truly money has been widely debated, but many in the community would agree that a medium of exchange is money.
Could the court have determined bitcoin wasn’t money because it isn’t tangible? There’s likely to be a ton of disagreement on this one, we reckon. What do you make of it?
You can read the original post here (Dutch).
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-17/1720/
该结论来自一个案子，一个人答应用比特币交付支付一定的费用，但实际上只有部分比特币到账。
据粗略翻译，投诉人支付22000欧元购买2750比特币，但他说他只收到990 个比特币，随后诉讼开始，但什么是钱的定义变成一个问题。
（由于交换的比特币数量很大，这很可能发生在2012年底， 2013年初 – 价格暴涨之前）
如果法院的观点认为比特币是钱，鉴于汇率已明显上升，那么申诉人很可能有获得13万欧元的权利，因为这笔交易已经发生了。
但由于法院认为比特币是交换的只是一个媒介（其中许多人会认为比特币是钱） ，被告被迫支付1760欧元损失费，并扣除2700欧元法律费用。
上艾瑟尔省法院说，比特币不是“普通”的钱，也不是法定货币。
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
法院难道已经确定比特币不是钱，因为它不是有形的？有可能这就是很大的分歧点，我们这样认为。你怎么看呢？
你可以点击这里（荷兰）读取原来的文章。
A court in Overijssel, Netherland has said that bitcoin is not money, but rather a medium of exchange, according to a report from Tweakers.
The conclusion comes from a case against a person who promised to pay a fee for the delivery of bitcoins, but says that only part of the bitcoins were actually supplied.
According to a rough translation, the complainant paid 22,000 euros for 2750 bitcoin, but says he only received 990. Thereafter, the lawsuit was starts, and as such the definition of what money is came into question.
(Given the amount that was to be paid in exchange for the amount of bitcoins, this is likely to have happened in late 2012, early 2013 – before the massive price spike.)
Should bitcoin have been considered money in the view of the court, then the complainant would likely have the right to 130,000 euros, given the fact that the exchange rate had gone up considerably since the deal was made.
But since the court has considered bitcoin to be merely a medium of exchange (which many would consider as money), the defendant was forced to pay damages of 1760 euros in addition to legal fees of 2700 euros.
The court in Overijssel says that bitcoin is not “common” money, nor is it legal tender.
The question of whether bitcoin is truly money has been widely debated, but many in the community would agree that a medium of exchange is money.
Could the court have determined bitcoin wasn’t money because it isn’t tangible? There’s likely to be a ton of disagreement on this one, we reckon. What do you make of it?
You can read the original post here (Dutch).
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-17/1720/
有观点,看看吧.
钱不也是一种交换媒介？一种进化了的交换媒介。
逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
脚踏实地的发展，别逼得太紧，央行喜欢打压 逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
我怎么觉得钱也是交换媒介呢？
钱不也是一种交换媒介？一种进化了的交换媒介。
逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
逗我们呢？货币本质就是交换媒介，这是承认比特币货币本质？
来自Tweakers的报道，荷兰上艾瑟尔省法院曾表示，比特币不是钱，而是交换的媒介。
该结论来自一个案子，一个人答应用比特币交付支付一定的费用，但实际上只有部分比特币到账。
据粗略翻译，投诉人支付22000欧元购买2750比特币，但他说他只收到990 个比特币，随后诉讼开始，但什么是钱的定义变成一个问题。
（由于交换的比特币数量很大，这很可能发生在2012年底， 2013年初 – 价格暴涨之前）
如果法院的观点认为比特币是钱，鉴于汇率已明显上升，那么申诉人很可能有获得13万欧元的权利，因为这笔交易已经发生了。
但由于法院认为比特币是交换的只是一个媒介（其中许多人会认为比特币是钱） ，被告被迫支付1760欧元损失费，并扣除2700欧元法律费用。
上艾瑟尔省法院说，比特币不是“普通”的钱，也不是法定货币。
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
法院难道已经确定比特币不是钱，因为它不是有形的？有可能这就是很大的分歧点，我们这样认为。你怎么看呢？
你可以点击这里（荷兰）读取原来的文章。
A court in Overijssel, Netherland has said that bitcoin is not money, but rather a medium of exchange, according to a report from Tweakers.
The conclusion comes from a case against a person who promised to pay a fee for the delivery of bitcoins, but says that only part of the bitcoins were actually supplied.
According to a rough translation, the complainant paid 22,000 euros for 2750 bitcoin, but says he only received 990. Thereafter, the lawsuit was starts, and as such the definition of what money is came into question.
(Given the amount that was to be paid in exchange for the amount of bitcoins, this is likely to have happened in late 2012, early 2013 – before the massive price spike.)
Should bitcoin have been considered money in the view of the court, then the complainant would likely have the right to 130,000 euros, given the fact that the exchange rate had gone up considerably since the deal was made.
But since the court has considered bitcoin to be merely a medium of exchange (which many would consider as money), the defendant was forced to pay damages of 1760 euros in addition to legal fees of 2700 euros.
The court in Overijssel says that bitcoin is not “common” money, nor is it legal tender.
The question of whether bitcoin is truly money has been widely debated, but many in the community would agree that a medium of exchange is money.
Could the court have determined bitcoin wasn’t money because it isn’t tangible? There’s likely to be a ton of disagreement on this one, we reckon. What do you make of it?
You can read the original post here (Dutch).
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-17/1720/
该结论来自一个案子，一个人答应用比特币交付支付一定的费用，但实际上只有部分比特币到账。
据粗略翻译，投诉人支付22000欧元购买2750比特币，但他说他只收到990 个比特币，随后诉讼开始，但什么是钱的定义变成一个问题。
（由于交换的比特币数量很大，这很可能发生在2012年底， 2013年初 – 价格暴涨之前）
如果法院的观点认为比特币是钱，鉴于汇率已明显上升，那么申诉人很可能有获得13万欧元的权利，因为这笔交易已经发生了。
但由于法院认为比特币是交换的只是一个媒介（其中许多人会认为比特币是钱） ，被告被迫支付1760欧元损失费，并扣除2700欧元法律费用。
上艾瑟尔省法院说，比特币不是“普通”的钱，也不是法定货币。
比特币是不是真正的钱，已引起广泛争议，但很多市民都会赞同交换媒介就是钱。
法院难道已经确定比特币不是钱，因为它不是有形的？有可能这就是很大的分歧点，我们这样认为。你怎么看呢？
你可以点击这里（荷兰）读取原来的文章。
A court in Overijssel, Netherland has said that bitcoin is not money, but rather a medium of exchange, according to a report from Tweakers.
The conclusion comes from a case against a person who promised to pay a fee for the delivery of bitcoins, but says that only part of the bitcoins were actually supplied.
According to a rough translation, the complainant paid 22,000 euros for 2750 bitcoin, but says he only received 990. Thereafter, the lawsuit was starts, and as such the definition of what money is came into question.
(Given the amount that was to be paid in exchange for the amount of bitcoins, this is likely to have happened in late 2012, early 2013 – before the massive price spike.)
Should bitcoin have been considered money in the view of the court, then the complainant would likely have the right to 130,000 euros, given the fact that the exchange rate had gone up considerably since the deal was made.
But since the court has considered bitcoin to be merely a medium of exchange (which many would consider as money), the defendant was forced to pay damages of 1760 euros in addition to legal fees of 2700 euros.
The court in Overijssel says that bitcoin is not “common” money, nor is it legal tender.
The question of whether bitcoin is truly money has been widely debated, but many in the community would agree that a medium of exchange is money.
Could the court have determined bitcoin wasn’t money because it isn’t tangible? There’s likely to be a ton of disagreement on this one, we reckon. What do you make of it?
You can read the original post here (Dutch).
本文固定链接: 三个硬币 | http://www.3-coin.com/2014-05-17/1720/
Jump to: