Yes, right. And now there are many types of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency.
Topic: Are bitcoins an e-currency? (Read 3152 times)
Yes, bitcoin can do transactions online also. Bitcoin like virtual payment but we can do investment in bitcoin.
Bitcoin more profitable more than gold. So bitcoin value will increase every year. I believe 1 altcoins still bitcoin.
Bitcoin more profitable more than gold. So bitcoin value will increase every year. I believe 1 altcoins still bitcoin.
e-currency sounds lame... how about just.. currency?
Ok let me rephrase that, if a bank decides to reverse the payment in claim of you selling ecurrencies can you take them to court and hope to hold them accountable of paying you the damages not taking into account the likeliness of the ignorance of the judge about the technical aspect and the probability of him raising an eyebrow?
If you are asking from a legal perspective, then that's different. It would depend on your own governing laws and any existing precedents..
Only a court could probably give you a truly definitive answer here.
In most jurisdictions, cryptocurrencies are a grey area, because its still so early in the whole picture.
Many crypto-centered cases are a first of their kind so there isn't always a precedent to define it one way or another.
If buying and selling cryptocurrencies is not illegal where you are, then you may have a case against the bank in this instance.
It would be best to find a lawyer that can advise you correctly, or at the very least, seek out Legal Aid to determine whether you have a case or not.
Is there even a legal definition for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies where you are? You'd need to start here..
The bottom line Bitcoin is more directed to a digital gold I guess, it's a more spelled out on digital than e-currency due to its modernity that growing / developing according to the development of a more advanced era.
For me Bitcoin is more than just valuable, it's more very really precious and due its value that was tends to increase.. it's makes a rising to more popular, it becomes a new thing that's so special for everyone, which provides many benefits.
For me Bitcoin is more than just valuable, it's more very really precious and due its value that was tends to increase.. it's makes a rising to more popular, it becomes a new thing that's so special for everyone, which provides many benefits.
Bitcoin is a digital asset and not just an e-currency but something has a value like gold.. Bitcoin can be use as peer to peer transactions and commodity. Bitcoin will can be use around the world by sending money online..
E-currency is not the right way to describe Bitcoin. As existing E-currency in FIAT is issued by Government and Bitcoin being decentralized should better be known as virtual currency or transferable smart contract. Moreover, BTC is now taken as investment tool so people even start calling it a Digital asset.
yes bitcoin is ane currency because it is an online currency for this currency transaction you need to have an internet connection
Would you even define it as an e-currency instead of virtual property? Since you are holding virtual valuables which you sell the same way Call of Duty is being sold on Steam?
According to me , it has different names at different levels .
If i am holding bitcoin in some sort of offline wallet and not using it for selling or trying to change the bitcoin into my fiat it remains a virtual currency .
The virtual currency which is known to me but not to anyone else .
The moment i convert bitcoins into fiat using some local exchange , it becomes an e-currency for me as well as for the bank and is known to me as well as my bank .
The definite term for it is cryptocurrency. But if you descrbe, yup it is pretty much an e-currency or a virtual currency. However, in today's time, it is not yet fully utalized as a currency or as a money (means for exchangs for service and consumer products). Although some stores and companies are now recognizing it, there is still a lot to penetrate because below 50% of the people are not yet convinced that Bitcoin is the future of money. Some even see it just as a bubble.
At the moment I consider bitcoins as a digital asset, because currently most of the users are preferring to hold the bitcoins for making good profit in the future and very small percentage of users are actually making transactions by using the bitcoins.
Would you even define it as an e-currency instead of virtual property? Since you are holding virtual valuables which you sell the same way Call of Duty is being sold on Steam?
"Bitcoin's price has now exceeded 14,149.50 US Dollars.It could be when the buyer did not immediately complete the payment of 1 Bitcoin already menyetuh number 16000.50 US Dollar.Bitcoin's cheap price increase is very good for investment, but if it continues like this will be very difficult to make transaction tool ". so in my opinion, it is still difficult to declare bitcoin as e-currency. Maybe as a digital asset and investment, I agree.
The habit of lumping bitcoins with diverse gift card-like systems like Linden Dollars, as the ECB does, is just to confuse, and belittle bitcoin. Bitcoins really is money.
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
Actually, I'd argue that the thrust of the ECB here is a lame attempt to bring bitcoin regulation under their jurisdiction where they have none at all.
They have as much jurisdiction over bitcoin as they have over tribes in outer-mongolia trading shiny stones, that is the reality that they hate.
ECB, and any central banks, have their Monopoly monies to experiment wildly with, we have ours .... just quietly, eff off.
According to Australian legislation Bitcoin does not fit the definition of e-currency:
From AUSTRAC's website: http://www.austrac.gov.au/threshold_transactions.html
The actual legislation (AML/CTF 2006 Act) reads:
From reading through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 there is no thing specifically prescribing Bitcoin as an electronic currency as far as I can tell. All the wording relates to people transferring fixed value money between institutions.
I'm sure this legislation will be up for review soon though.
From AUSTRAC's website: http://www.austrac.gov.au/threshold_transactions.html
Quote
'E-currency' is an electronic form of currency which is backed by precious metal or bullion.
The actual legislation (AML/CTF 2006 Act) reads:
Quote
e-currency means an internet-based, electronic means of exchange that is:
(a) known as any of the following: (i) e-currency;
(ii) e-money;
(iii) digital currency;
(iv) a name specified in the AML/CTF Rules; and
(b) backed either directly or indirectly by: (i) precious metal; or
(iii) a thing of a kind prescribed by the AML/CTF Rules; and
(c) not issued by or under the authority of a government body;
and includes anything that, under the regulations, is taken to be e-currency for the purposes of this Act.
(a) known as any of the following: (i) e-currency;
(ii) e-money;
(iii) digital currency;
(iv) a name specified in the AML/CTF Rules; and
(b) backed either directly or indirectly by: (i) precious metal; or
(iii) a thing of a kind prescribed by the AML/CTF Rules; and
(c) not issued by or under the authority of a government body;
and includes anything that, under the regulations, is taken to be e-currency for the purposes of this Act.
From reading through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 there is no thing specifically prescribing Bitcoin as an electronic currency as far as I can tell. All the wording relates to people transferring fixed value money between institutions.
I'm sure this legislation will be up for review soon though.
Thanks guys, you really are great
According to Australian legislation Bitcoin does not fit the definition of e-currency:
From AUSTRAC's website: http://www.austrac.gov.au/threshold_transactions.html
The actual legislation (AML/CTF 2006 Act) reads:
From reading through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 there is no thing specifically prescribing Bitcoin as an electronic currency as far as I can tell. All the wording relates to people transferring fixed value money between institutions.
I'm sure this legislation will be up for review soon though.
From AUSTRAC's website: http://www.austrac.gov.au/threshold_transactions.html
Quote
'E-currency' is an electronic form of currency which is backed by precious metal or bullion.
The actual legislation (AML/CTF 2006 Act) reads:
Quote
e-currency means an internet-based, electronic means of exchange that is:
(a) known as any of the following: (i) e-currency;
(ii) e-money;
(iii) digital currency;
(iv) a name specified in the AML/CTF Rules; and
(b) backed either directly or indirectly by: (i) precious metal; or
(iii) a thing of a kind prescribed by the AML/CTF Rules; and
(c) not issued by or under the authority of a government body;
and includes anything that, under the regulations, is taken to be e-currency for the purposes of this Act.
(a) known as any of the following: (i) e-currency;
(ii) e-money;
(iii) digital currency;
(iv) a name specified in the AML/CTF Rules; and
(b) backed either directly or indirectly by: (i) precious metal; or
(iii) a thing of a kind prescribed by the AML/CTF Rules; and
(c) not issued by or under the authority of a government body;
and includes anything that, under the regulations, is taken to be e-currency for the purposes of this Act.
From reading through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 there is no thing specifically prescribing Bitcoin as an electronic currency as far as I can tell. All the wording relates to people transferring fixed value money between institutions.
I'm sure this legislation will be up for review soon though.
The habit of lumping bitcoins with diverse gift card-like systems like Linden Dollars, as the ECB does, is just to confuse, and belittle bitcoin. Bitcoins really is money.
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
Actually, I'd argue that the thrust of the ECB here is a lame attempt to bring bitcoin regulation under their jurisdiction where they have none at all.
They have as much jurisdiction over bitcoin as they have over tribes in outer-mongolia trading shiny stones, that is the reality that they hate.
ECB, and any central banks, have their Monopoly monies to experiment wildly with, we have ours .... just quietly, eff off.
The habit of lumping bitcoins with diverse gift card-like systems like Linden Dollars, as the ECB does, is just to confuse, and belittle bitcoin. Bitcoins really is money.
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
The real gold in that report is the chapter of Reputational Risk (page 45).
"If the use of virtual currency schemes grows considerably, incidents which attract press coverage
could have negative impacts on the reputations of central banks, if the public perceives the
incidents as being caused, in part, by central banks not doing their jobs properly. As a consequence,
this risk should be considered when assessing the overall risk situation of central banks."
Yes, covering their asses is their most important goal. They are not worried about the system itself, only their own reputation.
The report: www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
e-asset, not currency, no one will use this as currency if the price just double every year
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
This was a legit legal question yet you guys have derailed it into a childish discussion... amazing..
You should have put it up in the "Legal" section (along with the hundred other threads asking similar questions) ... instead you threw it into the mosh pit. Really, what did you expect?
Bitcoins are nothing ... yet they could be anything. Their ephemeral nature is going to be twisting lawyers, politicians and judges minds into pretzels for decades (that's one of the reasons I luv the tech.
).First, you need to define what is a "bitcoin"?
Is it the private crypto key?, is it the blockchain ledger entry?, is it the software that looks up the database? or the software that can transfer value between keys?, is it the miners that secure the transactions entries? or etc? ... start there.
Thanks for your input guys!
bitcointalk is starting to resemble 4chan with all the low quality users registering.
Yeah, those low quality users like the person who posted this thread under "Bitcoin Discussion" instead of putting it where it belongs, in "Legal Discussion".
When asking this question, you really need to state which definition you want to use. Are you asking if bitcoins are an electronic currency under some legal definition, or are you asking if Joe Schmoe on the street would call bitcoins an electronic currency? Legal definitions can vary from place to place.
This was a legit legal question yet you guys have derailed it into a childish discussion... amazing..
You should have put it up in the "Legal" section (along with the hundred other threads asking similar questions) ... instead you threw it into the mosh pit. Really, what did you expect?
Bitcoins are nothing ... yet they could be anything. Their ephemeral nature is going to be twisting lawyers, politicians and judges minds into pretzels for decades (that's one of the reasons I luv the tech.
).First, you need to define what is a "bitcoin"?
Is it the private crypto key?, is it the blockchain ledger entry?, is it the software that looks up the database? or the software that can transfer value between keys?, is it the miners that secure the transactions entries? or etc? ... start there.
Thanks for your input guys!
bitcointalk is starting to resemble 4chan with all the low quality users registering.
This was a legit legal question yet you guys have derailed it into a childish discussion... amazing..
You should have put it up in the "Legal" section (along with the hundred other threads asking similar questions) ... instead you threw it into the mosh pit. Really, what did you expect?
Bitcoins are nothing ... yet they could be anything. Their ephemeral nature is going to be twisting lawyers, politicians and judges minds into pretzels for decades (that's one of the reasons I luv the tech.
).First, you need to define what is a "bitcoin"?
Is it the private crypto key?, is it the blockchain ledger entry?, is it the software that looks up the database? or the software that can transfer value between keys?, is it the miners that secure the transactions entries? or etc? ... start there.
Ok let me rephrase that, if a bank decides to reverse the payment in claim of you selling ecurrencies can you take them to court and hope to hold them accountable of paying you the damages not taking into account the likeliness of the ignorance of the judge about the technical aspect and the probability of him raising an eyebrow?
You are looking for an opinion in the wrong place. The users of bitcointalk most likely won't define Bitcoin in the same manner as a court of law.
This sounds about right.
Jump to: