Topic: Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin? - page 8. (Read 63027 times)

Due to breach of trust and gross negligence by Sirius and Theymos who recklessly transferred my private and personal data on this forum to a Japaneze company without my permission I am leaving this forum and deleting all my posts. Goodbye.

Remember, gold is not a money and bitcoin is very similar to gold

If I was the bank I wouldn't open the bitcoin can of worms, instead, I'd focus on the mtgox USD.

Clearly, *that* is an e-currency :
 - It's issued by a central authority: Tibanne,
 - it is an instrument that represents debt, the creditor being the user, and the debtor being tibanne,
 - it is redeemable against fiat currency,
 - it is transferable to a third party using an mtgox code

Devil's advocate. Bitcoin is a currency. The issuer is the original miner who generated it. The only difference is that the issuers are distributed.

2. "electronic money" means electronically, including magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in point 5 of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issuer;"

Word definitions... What is monetary value? A house? A car? Something with the word 'coin' in it?

Gov will respond somehow. This will effect bitcoin value somehow. Up as well as down i'm sure. Hard to predict.

We all expected this to happen but we didnt know when. Im sure some people woild have hoped a more quiet developing time rather than an explosive and rapid news events.

Different governments can respond in different ways. One gives it ligitimacy and outlaws it, and gives itblegitimacy and recognises it; both are rocognising the currency.

..and that it's deflationary.

Good to see that MtGox has already debunked two of the most bitcoin myths. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin is not "tax free".

As a business we are already paying taxes on bitcoin, as acquisition of valued non-expirable goods.

+1 well said, modrobert.

If true freedom (not the limited USA version) was a commodity, I think we can all agree the global demand is bigger than the supply. This is the reason Bitcoin will succeed where others fail.

Do you agree?
It looks that there are three issues on stake.

a) The definition of WHAT THE HECK IS BITCOIN. Let me give a dummy aproach.
It's clear now to me that Bitcoins itself are no "Money", just exchangeable "virtual assets" assigned not to people but to particular "digital certificates". Assets that are generated with not a single $ put on it (other than the tools+labor "energy" used to harvest it - such as hands+human energy or computer+electricity to mine virtual assets), and can be exchanged for any other king of asset such as money, gold, goods, etc. This is simillar as to creating an ashtray from mud and sell it in my front door to people (when I was a little kid), its price would be based in the effort to do some newone my self, getting an other similar to it, or the uniquity of my creation. I believe this makes Bitcoin similar to a regular "asset" aproach. Perhaps we should all replace the definition of "virtual currency" for "virtual asset".

b) Is it legal to trade Bitcoins for regular money? An if so, should it have taxes or regulations?
I believe that any "other" asset is absolutelly legally to trade, this shouldn't be an exception (unless... read "c"). If we love bitcoins because they can exchanged from Person 2 Person (the original idea), no one should forbid such (P2P is usually used for piracy, but this has nothing to do with it), as regular money isn't forbidded to exchange hands freely. But if this exchange has to be done over an exchange or formal platform it should pay taxes as any other asset.

c) What might come next?
a- If governments believe that BTC cand o will be used as a way of avoiding taxes, crossborder regulations, money laundering, etc, it cares not if there are actual laws or new laws... they will just regulate it. If the first one is good for Bitcoins or not, who knows, I think that even though we shoukd tell who we are, pay taxes, etc, BTC will have fewer transaction fees, fewer asset holding fees (vs money in banks), quicker payment recieving, unfakeable and controled emission, etc, all things that will still make the BTC interesting as an asset.
b- IF governmets think that the Bitcoin protocol, network, blockchain, etc is unsecure, they might try to shut it as for avoiding people to invest regular assets in this unsecure asset, but thought it looks secure enough this shouldn't be the case. But if so, trolls, noobs, regulars we be glad.

So I believe this should come fine for MtGox as a trader unless his LCC has no legallity to trade assets, but if we keep on the trace of mainstreaming it we should expect some general regulations.

Bitcoin is a medium. A secure medium, but a conduit to transfer perceived value. Like air facilitates speech, bitcoin facilitates transactions. Lawmakers and legislators typically have zero ability to adapt to virtual concepts, even though skimming billions off a tax-base is second nature. Oh, the irony.

Bitcoin is certainly not Fiat Money. However, Bitcoin can serve as a medium of exchange; a unit of account; and a store of value. But Bitcoin does not fit neatly into any of the categories for types of money. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Types_of_money
Bitcoin has some characteristics of commodities, some of money and some new characteristics. Bitcoin is really a new category because it does not fit into any of the previous categories.

Folding paper printed with govt. figures and coins stamped with heads of state looks like money.  Bitcoin doesn't look like money.
You can't feel it in your hand at all, it is purely virtual, microscopic bits.  Bitcoin doesn't feel like money
not until there are insured deposits in safely regulated banks that pay their operating costs from loans, thus increasing the money supply
YES IT CAN

It's just semantics when you are talking about is bitcoin money?  is bitcoin currency?  It is what it is, and these words help to define it so people can understand what it is.  The word MONEY doesn't change what bitcoin is.

We all hope that it IS NOT defined as a virtual currency by the french court, right?  In fact, the arguments should be that bitcoin IS NOT money, IS NOT currency, IS NOT any previously defined legal category of thing.  That way, it IS NOT subject to already existing regulations that will make it harder for it to succeed.  Just because you think of it that way, doesn't mean it helps the community to portray it as such to the public.

Whatever we think of it is legally irrelevant. Perhaps it will define a new asset class. But if the European Union accepts bitcoin as money, to settle all debts public and private...

Gotta either pay taxes on it, or with it, which is worse?

I sincerely believe this idea to be worthy of consideration.

If some B- (I'm being generous here) sci-fi writer can start a worldwide religion, so can we.

P.S.:
Re the whole "is it money" issue - bitcoin is "money" to the same extent that China is a giant, living organism

I discussed setting up a financial business with my lawyer in Denmark (because of certain off-shore legal properties) and found the 2009 Consolidation Act quite interesting. The first two pages list numerous previous laws (many European) that this act considers/consolidates/supersedes. It breaks businesses into a number of categories, credit, investment, insurance, etc for those located within, without, and dealing with customers within and without Europe. It looked like one million EUR just to start the process.

But I agree with Tux's defense in summary. Bitcoin is not money any more than collectors items such as baseball cards, prime numbers, or gold. Ben confirmed under oath that gold is not money, but the European Union reserves a special legal place exclusively to gold and no other commodity. If bitcoin is money, that opens up a larger can of worms for the EU.

I know several companies providing financial services, NOT being regulated, and successfully getting around that by: instead of customers making deposits, customers are "buy" "points" (for example at an exchange rate 1 cent = 1 point) and those points sit in customers account, and when the customer wants to withdraw, he is "selling" those points. These are quite large companies in Poland operating this way, providing online auction services, social lending, etc. All of them use the legal trick with "points", instead of simply deposits in currency. And it works, authorities are not touching them.

Pray tell and where would you buy something with these bitcoins if they were declared illegal?

think of the money you could make from starting a cash-to-btc street office chain...


http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8422/hazthebitcoin.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us