Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 10.

Anduril

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: Big Time Coin on September 04, 2011, 10:32:35 PM

Vivendi Universal is french, they own blizzard, blizzard runs WoW, that's billions of dollars in virtual goods. One of which is a virtual currency. Dofus comes to mind as well, that is distinctly french. Anyway, if the bank holds accounts for these people, they should have to hold accounts for you as well, non?

No, third parties do not accept the currency as means of exchange, WoW gold does not meet the definitions.

Dusty

hero member

Activity: 731

Merit: 503

Libertas a calumnia

[registering to this interesting thread]

Karmicads

full member

Activity: 185

Merit: 121

Quote from: julz on September 05, 2011, 04:18:08 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gabi on September 05, 2011, 03:25:39 AM

Quote from: evoorhees on September 05, 2011, 01:59:57 AM

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

You are a genius

Guys, if we manage to create a religion that has bitcoin as a sacred thing, then every problem is solved.

And creating religions is possible, even sci-fi authors created some of great success!

I'm pretty sure considering the requirements for holding Bitcoins include blind faith and constant defending of your opinions, Bitcoin is already a religion, just much less profitable since our only prophet can't speak without a laptop in his lap.

You dare imply BW was a prophet!?
May all your private keys become public for suggesting such a thing!
Satoshi is the one and only bitcoin prophet.

Er... I would think Satoshi was the Mesiah (He's been taken up...). Gavin is our prophet, and Bruce? Hmm... I'd have to say he's a fallen angel at this point, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the horns ans hoofs.

Karmicads

full member

Activity: 185

Merit: 121

Quote from: evoorhees on September 05, 2011, 01:59:57 AM

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

No my friend. That is the loving spirit of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, reaching out and touching you with his noodley appendage. This is a fantastic idea. FULL OF WIN!!

Furthermore, I say we define bitcoin as 'spiritual love', a blessing and a sacrament, and consider it blasphemy to equate it to any earthly currencies. Will the court's deny our religious freedom? Grin

BitcoinPorn

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Posts: 69

Quote from: MagicalTux on September 04, 2011, 09:21:06 AM

Bitcoin is not a money, it's bitcoin. Don't try to interpret it with current laws, we'll most likely need a new set of laws to accommodate the way it works and the anonymity required.

I wish this were to happen. Bitcoin is going to be pegged and labeled in the easiest way for them to understand, which is 'funny money' .. but still money.

Thanks for this update Tux, I hope your lawyers are poking at this case from all sides and even jumping in the forums to see what the smarter users might be able to offer regarding this case.

The_Duke

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Lead Core BitKitty Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:53:08 AM

Quote from: The_Duke on September 05, 2011, 04:40:17 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:28:07 AM

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

Unless the judge decides that the value is not attached to the code in the blockchain, but to the key that provides the right of ownership.

defxor

hero member

Activity: 530

Merit: 500

Quote from: MagicalTux on September 05, 2011, 05:00:56 AM

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

This is often sadly forgotten by [us] geeks. I've also seen in discussions here a disconnect between those of use who live in "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" countries. As a generalization I usually go with Europe as a whole often going with what the intention with a law was rather than evaluating whether a new technology needs new letters to be added to the law or not.

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

Quote from: grondilu on September 05, 2011, 05:36:58 AM

(registering to this thread)

Wanna show up for the ruling ?
I'll be there

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

(registering to this thread)

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: MagicalTux on September 05, 2011, 05:00:56 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:53:08 AM

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

It's not really "technical", its real.
Bitcoins are physically not stored on anybody's computer.

The private key giving you access to certain amounts of BTC should be viewed as a digital "certificate of ownership" of bitcoins, not bitcoins themselves - it's completely logical.

MagicalTux

vip

Activity: 608

Merit: 501

-

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:53:08 AM

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: The_Duke on September 05, 2011, 04:40:17 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:28:07 AM

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

The_Duke

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Lead Core BitKitty Developer

Quote from: kripz on September 05, 2011, 04:50:24 AM

When is this going to happen? Got lost in the excitement Sad

13th of Sept I think?

kripz

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

When is this going to happen? Got lost in the excitement Sad

ChupacabraHunter

member

Activity: 73

Merit: 10

Chupacabra = Corrupt Gov't,Lies and Fraud

Quote from: niko on September 04, 2011, 05:01:55 PM

I am not qualified to judge what outcome would be best for Bitcoin. Perhaps it's best to ask ourselves what outcome would be most desirable for those who oppose it?

There are prior examples of informal opinions from the government agencies - here is one:

Quote

HMRC, the UK government's tax-collecting body, says people do not incur a tax liability when trading in bitcoins as long as they do not turn their profits into regular cash. Once conventional money is involved, however, the income could become taxable, HMRC told New Scientist.

source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028155.600-future-of-money-virtual-cash-gets-real.html

I agree that it may lead everyone on a more clear path if we try and follow the path the opponents may try and take. But to add a little confusion, it is also nice to see them chasing all the new ground breakers running wild

All in all this is a great "chase" all around!

The_Duke

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Lead Core BitKitty Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on September 05, 2011, 04:28:07 AM

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: MagicalTux on September 04, 2011, 09:55:03 AM

Quote from: ribuck on September 04, 2011, 09:49:18 AM

Quote from: MagicalTux on September 04, 2011, 09:21:06 AM

Bitcoin is not a money, it's bitcoin. Don't try to interpret it with current laws...

The state will naturally try to interpret it with current laws. If you don't want to irritate the state, stop scratching it.

In Japan we will most likely see new laws and new regulations adapted to bitcoin (nothing is set yet, talks are still in progress). Other countries could see the same thing if current laws are deemed "not enough".

Anyway if you just read the law, Bitcoin is not a virtual currency.

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

julz

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gabi on September 05, 2011, 03:25:39 AM

Quote from: evoorhees on September 05, 2011, 01:59:57 AM

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

You are a genius

Guys, if we manage to create a religion that has bitcoin as a sacred thing, then every problem is solved.

And creating religions is possible, even sci-fi authors created some of great success!

I'm pretty sure considering the requirements for holding Bitcoins include blind faith and constant defending of your opinions, Bitcoin is already a religion, just much less profitable since our only prophet can't speak without a laptop in his lap.

You dare imply BW was a prophet!?
May all your private keys become public for suggesting such a thing!
Satoshi is the one and only bitcoin prophet.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

If we make it an official religion then we start collecting DONATIONS

In Italy you could even ask people to donate 8‰ of their taxes to a religion. After all each year the vatican make more than a billion with that way!

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

There is lots of interesting info in that PDF ...

Topic: Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 10. (Read 63018 times)