Topic: Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 63018 times)
November 27, 2011, 01:37:16 AM
bored about your bla - bla. if you dont like mtgox use an other exchange. bye bye & never come back.
at what time you plan to get back to the topic of this thread?
thanks.
November 26, 2011, 11:10:10 PM
I'm not sure I would trust my BTC OR my $$$ to a "financial institution" that uses google mail for their email system.
if you think you can do better as an exchange, then open one.
I am sure they had more important things to take care of then trying to maintain an email server.
...Or a SQL database of user passwords, or a customer service line, or a legal department, or proper programmers... or or or or or...
It's just symptomatic of the whole situation. You can't run a hobby like a business, or a business like a hobby. Pick what you're going to do, and do it the right way.
I have no desire to be an exchange of any kind of money. If I were going to do that, I would buy nickels and melt them down.
November 24, 2011, 10:28:27 PM
I'm not sure I would trust my BTC OR my $$$ to a "financial institution" that uses google mail for their email system.
if you think you can do better as an exchange, then open one.
I am sure they had more important things to take care of then trying to maintain an email server.
November 24, 2011, 09:13:21 PM
I'm not sure I would trust my BTC OR my $$$ to a "financial institution" that uses google mail for their email system.
November 20, 2011, 01:42:50 AM
So how many peoples money did they lose with this latest debacle?
There's no reason why any funds would have been lost even if accessing them was difficult while the matter was being determined. If I recall correctly, at the emergency hearing the bank was ordered to pay a per day fee to MtGox until the matter was resolved.
November 19, 2011, 04:18:02 PM
So how many peoples money did they lose with this latest debacle?
$0 I would assume, they are paying legal fees out of their own pockets. And unless i missed soemthing there has been no mention of them not making funds available to any customers who could have potentially been affected by bank closures....?? November 19, 2011, 12:04:42 PM
So how many peoples money did they lose with this latest debacle?
November 17, 2011, 08:00:09 PM
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
we can't simply say "the unique nature of Bitcoin, GIVES us the right to do what ever the fuck we want" ... that's just not cool
Ideally I would like to see new laws being crafted for cryptocurrencies after undergoing a public debate and normal democratic processes. Wishful thinking I guess...
we have to work with them, to define bitcoin in the law book.
Exactly!The nature of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the decision. They found that MtGox was effectively operating as a money transfer business/bank by taking and holding user deposits of actual currency and that because they weren't licensed to do that they were operating outside the law. The issue being determined was whether they had a right to a French bank account. The ruling pretty much meant that because they weren't appropriately licensed for the services they were providing, the bank didn't have to provide them with services (and neither did any other French bank).
I thought that the nature of Bitcoin was indeed the issue here that had to be decided - if I may quote from Mark's OP:
Chances are it'll take a few weeks/months before a final decision is taken, however starting September 13th, a French court will review the question "Is bitcoin a virtual currency".
Are you talking about a different case or am I missing something?
As far as I understand it, it's the same case. MtGox wanted the nature of Bitcoin to be an issue in the determination but it wasn't the grounds on which the ruling was made. I don't know whether it was determined to be an irrelevant issue to the proceedings or whether it's yet to be decided but Mark's updates haven't indicated that there are any novel issues awaiting determination.
November 17, 2011, 11:02:33 AM
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
we can't simply say "the unique nature of Bitcoin, GIVES us the right to do what ever the fuck we want" ... that's just not cool
Ideally I would like to see new laws being crafted for cryptocurrencies after undergoing a public debate and normal democratic processes. Wishful thinking I guess...
we have to work with them, to define bitcoin in the law book.
Exactly!The nature of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the decision. They found that MtGox was effectively operating as a money transfer business/bank by taking and holding user deposits of actual currency and that because they weren't licensed to do that they were operating outside the law. The issue being determined was whether they had a right to a French bank account. The ruling pretty much meant that because they weren't appropriately licensed for the services they were providing, the bank didn't have to provide them with services (and neither did any other French bank).
I thought that the nature of Bitcoin was indeed the issue here that had to be decided - if I may quote from Mark's OP:
Chances are it'll take a few weeks/months before a final decision is taken, however starting September 13th, a French court will review the question "Is bitcoin a virtual currency".
Are you talking about a different case or am I missing something?
November 17, 2011, 05:53:53 AM
Well, I know a Central Bank that made a decision on classifying Bitcoin two months ago.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but since when is it for a bank to make such a decision? Last time I checked banks were not the ones to make new laws (at least not officially 
)I was under the impression that Bitcoin is not covered by existing legislation (at least not those by the EU specifically crafted for digital currencies). Therefore I had expected that new laws would have to be worked out and that at least some democratic process is involved with that.
I'd be glad if somebody could shed some more light into this issue...
Thats a little secret of democracy, it should be called burocracy in reality.
November 17, 2011, 01:19:21 AM
The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right?
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
Guess we'll have to wait and see... any day now...
The nature of Bitcoin had nothing to do with the decision. They found that MtGox was effectively operating as a money transfer business/bank by taking and holding user deposits of actual currency and that because they weren't licensed to do that they were operating outside the law. The issue being determined was whether they had a right to a French bank account. The ruling pretty much meant that because they weren't appropriately licensed for the services they were providing, the bank didn't have to provide them with services (and neither did any other French bank).
November 17, 2011, 01:06:17 AM
The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right?
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
Guess we'll have to wait and see... any day now...
we can't simply say "the unique nature of Bitcoin, GIVES us the right to do what ever the fuck we want" ... that's just not cool
we have to work with them, to define bitcoin in the law book.
November 16, 2011, 11:58:47 PM
Are MtGox appealing this? I got the impression that they weren't after the ruling came down.
November 16, 2011, 09:12:06 PM
GOXXXED!!!
November 14, 2011, 01:51:20 PM
The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right?
So they can only do this if they are somewhat certain that Bitcoin was in fact covered by existing legislation. I could imagine there's a good chance of successfully disputing this interpretation of the laws, considering the unique nature of Bitcoin.
Guess we'll have to wait and see... any day now...
November 14, 2011, 12:56:49 PM
Well, I know a Central Bank that made a decision on classifying Bitcoin two months ago.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but since when is it for a bank to make such a decision? Last time I checked banks were not the ones to make new laws (at least not officially )I was under the impression that Bitcoin is not covered by existing legislation (at least not those by the EU specifically crafted for digital currencies). Therefore I had expected that new laws would have to be worked out and that at least some democratic process is involved with that.
I'd be glad if somebody could shed some more light into this issue...
I asked this question here before. Here's a candidate for an answer:
The Banque de France is the regulator - it's decision effectively legally defines MtGox as a money transfer business and prohibits it from operating without a licence.
So it seems that formally the Banque de France acted in its capacity as a regulator (not law-maker). It's effectively prohibiting mtgox from operating due to the existing law that disallows money transfer businesses to operator without a license by classifying mtgox as a money transfer business. Right?
November 14, 2011, 12:30:23 PM
Maybe I'm just too naive, but since when is it for a bank to make such a decision? Last time I checked banks were not the ones to make new laws (at least not officially )
I was under the impression that Bitcoin is not covered by existing legislation (at least not those by the EU specifically crafted for digital currencies). Therefore I had expected that new laws would have to be worked out and that at least some democratic process is involved with that.
I'd be glad if somebody could shed some more light into this issue...
)I was under the impression that Bitcoin is not covered by existing legislation (at least not those by the EU specifically crafted for digital currencies). Therefore I had expected that new laws would have to be worked out and that at least some democratic process is involved with that.
I'd be glad if somebody could shed some more light into this issue...
I just realized that I skipped over the "bank" word.
I agree with you, their posts do not make much sense. November 14, 2011, 12:26:23 PM
Well, I know a Central Bank that made a decision on classifying Bitcoin two months ago.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but since when is it for a bank to make such a decision? Last time I checked banks were not the ones to make new laws (at least not officially )I was under the impression that Bitcoin is not covered by existing legislation (at least not those by the EU specifically crafted for digital currencies). Therefore I had expected that new laws would have to be worked out and that at least some democratic process is involved with that.
I'd be glad if somebody could shed some more light into this issue...
November 14, 2011, 07:05:50 AM
I wondering if a depreciating bitcoin makes it less threatening and more likely to receive a favorable legal status.
November 14, 2011, 06:50:59 AM
Those are good news txcoin and tetra4c. It's nice to see new laws being created to classify Bitcoin. Keep us posted on the updates.
Jump to: