It is pretty normal to have a system of law providing for protection of parties that acquired rights to an asset before that asset was transferred to an acquiror and, as a deviation, rule out such protection in case of paper money. However, also bearer paper could be excluded from protection, thus not hindering ordinary commerce and the exchange of certain paper promises that require absolute faith in their value to function. I would think all sophisticated law systems provide for this in a certain manner.
Perhaps Bitcoin can qualify as a bearer right (the owner is unknown until the owner identifies himself as 'owner' and the user needs to know for sure that he can access/use his Bitcoins for the system to work). It would make absolute sense to deem Bitcoin included in a definition or bearer paper.
Topic: [2015-04-06] The Daily Bell: 'Tokyo, We Have a Problem.' Bitcoin's Fatal Flaw? (Read 732 times)
April 07, 2015, 04:08:07 PM
April 07, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
Amend the law, problem solved. Or drive businesses, innovation and tax revenues out of the US.
April 07, 2015, 09:23:48 AM
The "hot potato claim risk" does not even apply to fiat, why would it apply to Bitcoin?
BTC are not like fiat / paper money where the actual value represented is the contract between the issuer and the bearer of the currency. Bitcoin refer to a point in a blockchain/ledger {ledger entry}
How can someone else be entitled to a ledger entry? {There can only be one ledger entry refering to that value in the blockchain}
They just want to force KYC regulations onto people by implying this.
{If you know all the persons, who owned the coins, you would be able to identify the previous owners, if it was stolen and you, would then have a claim against the new owners for those coins}
BTC are not like fiat / paper money where the actual value represented is the contract between the issuer and the bearer of the currency. Bitcoin refer to a point in a blockchain/ledger {ledger entry}
How can someone else be entitled to a ledger entry? {There can only be one ledger entry refering to that value in the blockchain}
They just want to force KYC regulations onto people by implying this.
{If you know all the persons, who owned the coins, you would be able to identify the previous owners, if it was stolen and you, would then have a claim against the new owners for those coins} From the article: "Under the United States' UCC code (uniform commercial code) as long as bitcoins are treated as general intangibles, no high value investor can be sure that an angry Tony Soprano won't show up one day to claim that the bitcoins they thought they received in a completely unencumbered manner are actually his."
I believe what they're saying is that fiat is classified as money and so therefore, by law nobody can make a claim against your fiat if happened that you had already paid it to somebody else. To clarify further, imagine you sold me your car on paper, but then gave it to somebody else. Well potentially I could go after that car, claim it was mine and the courts might take it away from that third party.
Personally I still think BTC is the honey badger of money and it doesn't give a shit about some bullshit outdated law
Let's imagine this is a problem for BTC, well then I guess everyone will just move over Dash, Shadow, Monero, or whichever alt-coin has the properties to protect them.
April 07, 2015, 03:44:10 AM
Bitcoin's fatal flaw is a peculiarity of the US legal system.
Unfortunately, the USA is the entire planet, so there's absolutely no solution to the problem.
Unfortunately, the USA is the entire planet, so there's absolutely no solution to the problem.
April 07, 2015, 02:35:13 AM
The "hot potato claim risk" does not even apply to fiat, why would it apply to Bitcoin?
BTC are not like fiat / paper money where the actual value represented is the contract between the issuer and the bearer of the currency. Bitcoin refer to a point in a blockchain/ledger {ledger entry}
How can someone else be entitled to a ledger entry? {There can only be one ledger entry refering to that value in the blockchain}
They just want to force KYC regulations onto people by implying this. {If you know all the persons, who owned the coins, you would be able to identify the previous owners, if it was stolen and you, would then have a claim against the new owners for those coins}
BTC are not like fiat / paper money where the actual value represented is the contract between the issuer and the bearer of the currency. Bitcoin refer to a point in a blockchain/ledger {ledger entry}
How can someone else be entitled to a ledger entry? {There can only be one ledger entry refering to that value in the blockchain}
They just want to force KYC regulations onto people by implying this.
{If you know all the persons, who owned the coins, you would be able to identify the previous owners, if it was stolen and you, would then have a claim against the new owners for those coins} April 07, 2015, 02:19:26 AM
The law will follow economic reality, eventually. Its a flaw in the law at most. Bitcoin operates beautifully.
Jump to: