BTCBTC Now we (bitcoin) are officially called money, Smiley...
We can compete with fiat now though it would take a lot of time before the world will completely rely on cashless system.
I'm wondering, what are the countries who declare bitcoin as a property? Maybe they can change that decision and declare bitcoin as money so there will be a uniform treatment when it comes to taxing it.
Topic: D.C. Financial Services Law: Bitcoin is a form of money (Read 258 times)
yes, bitcoin should be considered as money that can be used as a medium of exchange, but at this time there are still many countries that do not use bitcoin as a means of exchange. some countries use bitcoin only for profit by way of trading and investing and not for use as money or a medium of exchange. I hope that in the future Bitcoin can be used like money so that I can buy something with bitcoin in any country.
It might be money but it will never be the government's money. It was issued by us the people. They cannot subject it to any laws. We can simply choose to reject fiat and use crypto. They can't touch us.
Why does anyone even care what America thinks? America hates its own people all hell is breaking loose there. Their police force it out of control and there is so much racism. They cannot agree on anything and are cut right in the middle. They elected Trump. Do I really have to go on?
To the goverment if you not using USD you are a criminal. They are the criminals. America should keep their problems to themselves. They sensationalize and exxagerate everything.
Why does anyone even care what America thinks? America hates its own people all hell is breaking loose there. Their police force it out of control and there is so much racism. They cannot agree on anything and are cut right in the middle. They elected Trump. Do I really have to go on?
To the goverment if you not using USD you are a criminal. They are the criminals. America should keep their problems to themselves. They sensationalize and exxagerate everything.
On the one hand, the news is good as bitcoin is gaining legal status.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
This is also partially good for me. At least the legal recognition that Bitcoin is indeed money is there. It's a good start. It may bring together with it some regulations but those regulations are part of legal recognition. There is no getting away with those. It's either you will not be recognized at all or be recognized and regulated at the same time.
What do you mean how they will do it?
I mean the fact that their recognition is only local. Bitcoin can be called international over the state currency. It is everywhere.
The fact that it was relatively accepted in the United States only means something for the people of the United States but not for the rest of the world.
If the whole world completely legalizes bitcoin, then the United States will have problems, because they will have to make a decision and vice versa.
In addition, it is not so easy to regulate bitcoin; it does not carry with it any informational data regarding the identity of the owner.
It cannot be locked unless it is on a platform you manage, so it is difficult to call it managed.
How to regulate what is not manageable?
Now we (bitcoin) are officially called money, 
...
We can compete with fiat now though it would take a lot of time before the world will completely rely on cashless system.
I'm wondering, what are the countries who declare bitcoin as a property? Maybe they can change that decision and declare bitcoin as money so there will be a uniform treatment when it comes to taxing it.
... We can compete with fiat now though it would take a lot of time before the world will completely rely on cashless system.
I'm wondering, what are the countries who declare bitcoin as a property? Maybe they can change that decision and declare bitcoin as money so there will be a uniform treatment when it comes to taxing it.
It shouldn't matter what the government thinks, bitcoin is money whether they like it or not.
Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
They have no choice but to accept it. Bitcoin has been a form of money since years ago during it's unpopular years. It's being recognized today because of the all-time high but if it isn't for that, bitcoin won't be recognized by these officials because they can find nothing with it.Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
But as they have understood that there's something within it that they can take, hey, it's money and they can't ignore it.
It shouldn't matter what the government thinks, bitcoin is money whether they like it or not.
Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
Or it can go the other way around, some governments see it as a threat, then try their best to put a hard line regulatory framework or something like a total ban, just like in the case of India. This is just a federal decision though, and it could vary from state to state. So I don't think we have something to cheer about.
It shouldn't matter what the government thinks, bitcoin is money whether they like it or not.
Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
Eventually the government's regulatory efforts will be futile do to the rapid expansion and flexibility of the currency.
As long as there are clear laws or laws related to Bitcoin in the country, this is not to blame. What's more, the country has legally recognized Bitcoin. However, it is said that this decision is based on the general definition of money as a means of payment. Does this mean that there is no specific law regarding Bitcoin?
There it also states:
related to this case, hopefully this is real the decision by the judge because Bitcoin is really considered as form of "money". Not because the judgment for specific person or parties.
There it also states:
Quote
Companies transacting in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are generally required to obtain money transmission licenses from states.
Then what about this license? If there are rules related to this, will you also be subject to taxes or other fees?related to this case, hopefully this is real the decision by the judge because Bitcoin is really considered as form of "money". Not because the judgment for specific person or parties.
Bitcoin is a reputable and highly valuable digital currency worldwide
Wow, those are some great news
it's not great news. it just means unlicensed bitcoin exchanges can be prosecuted under existing money transmission law.i wouldn't read much into it either. it's considered "money" in relation to money transmission law---not necessarily in terms of securities, commodities, tax, or other laws.
this is also just a district court ruling---the defendant will probably appeal.
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/localbitcoins-users-criminal-charges-florida
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/localbitcoins-trader-pleads-guilty-money-transmitter-charge
[3] http://www.dolpress.com/news/2016/4/17/no-greater-tyranny
On the one hand, the news is good as bitcoin is gaining legal status.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
This is also partially good for me. At least the legal recognition that Bitcoin is indeed money is there. It's a good start. It may bring together with it some regulations but those regulations are part of legal recognition. There is no getting away with those. It's either you will not be recognized at all or be recognized and regulated at the same time.
What do you mean how they will do it?
Wow, those are some great news, i hope my country adopt bitcoin as money soon too, that way the business can charge BTC and give a tax ticket. Right now they can't do that because in México bitcoin is considered a 'digital active' and not money.
it's not great news. it just means unlicensed bitcoin exchanges can be prosecuted under existing money transmission law.
i wouldn't read much into it either. it's considered "money" in relation to money transmission law---not necessarily in terms of securities, commodities, tax, or other laws.
this is also just a district court ruling---the defendant will probably appeal.
On the one hand, the news is good as bitcoin is gaining legal status.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
On the other hand, everything that has a legal status should be regulated. If bitcoin is money, then it must be regulated in some way.
The question is how they are going to do it or they will simply determine its status legally on the occasion.
Bitcoin Deemed ‘Money’ Under D.C. Financial Services Law
The virtual currency known as Bitcoin is a form of “money” covered under the Washington, D.C., Money Transmitters Act, a federal court said Friday.
The court declined to dismiss criminal charges against Larry Dean Harmon, the operator of an underground Bitcoin trading platform, for running an unlicensed money transmitting business under D.C. law and for laundering money under federal law.
Money “commonly means a medium of exchange, method of payment, or store of value,” Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “Bitcoin is these things.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bitcoin-deemed-money-under-d-c-financial-services-law
The virtual currency known as Bitcoin is a form of “money” covered under the Washington, D.C., Money Transmitters Act, a federal court said Friday.
The court declined to dismiss criminal charges against Larry Dean Harmon, the operator of an underground Bitcoin trading platform, for running an unlicensed money transmitting business under D.C. law and for laundering money under federal law.
Money “commonly means a medium of exchange, method of payment, or store of value,” Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “Bitcoin is these things.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bitcoin-deemed-money-under-d-c-financial-services-law
The fact that several US District Courts are treating Bitcoin as "money" doesn't mean that all US courts and the federal US government will treat Bitcoin the same way.
I'm not familiar with the US legislation and regulatory frames,but it looks like a mess to me.Some states are pro-Bitcoin while other are anti-Bitcoin.Some judges decide on Bitcoin's favor,other decide something different.
The time,when the USA will become a fully Bitcoin-friendly country is still far away.
I was surprised by the decision by the judge here. Most of the time we will hear verdict against the operator of bitcoin trading platform as illegal, but this time the outcome was. very difficult. But I agree that this is a good news indeed, it could set another precedence and this can be use as 'set of rules'. We might see more court cases in the future turn the tide against bitcoin enthusiast here.
I guess judges are now up to times, and are now understanding the development of what is to be the possible future. Especially if we were to adopt Crypto for the near future, and imo, not replacing fiat but rather living together with it. Still, I fear that the recognition of Bitcoin like this would only bring more limits to it's supposedly decentralized system, as you said, create a set of rules for Crypto. Sadly, said rules doesn't necessarily bring an advantage to it, but rather can be used against it. Still, i suppose it's an overall recognition with regards to Bitcoin not being an imaginary asset anymore, but rather as an asset as it is. We all know that Bitcoin or any other form of cryptocurrencies are not going to replace the old and traditional fiat system and could be an alternative or option. But banks are afraid of that, and are trying to push it as much as they can.
However, times has change, slowly Bitcoin is being recognized as money Under D.C. Financial Services Law and it will really open doors not just in US with this landmark decision.
At least now, it as an actual currency. Even though I stated in the link that it’s going to be a minimal impact towards Bitcoin in entirety, but it could be a steppingstone for everyone. This could be another reference for different cases, and maybe it could help someone in the future. We will never know until we are there. Recognition is always great, shedding some light on the good stuff is excellent as well.
I was surprised by the decision by the judge here. Most of the time we will hear verdict against the operator of bitcoin trading platform as illegal, but this time the outcome was. very difficult. But I agree that this is a good news indeed, it could set another precedence and this can be use as 'set of rules'. We might see more court cases in the future turn the tide against bitcoin enthusiast here.
I guess judges are now up to times, and are now understanding the development of what is to be the possible future. Especially if we were to adopt Crypto for the near future, and imo, not replacing fiat but rather living together with it. Still, I fear that the recognition of Bitcoin like this would only bring more limits to it's supposedly decentralized system, as you said, create a set of rules for Crypto. Sadly, said rules doesn't necessarily bring an advantage to it, but rather can be used against it. Still, i suppose it's an overall recognition with regards to Bitcoin not being an imaginary asset anymore, but rather as an asset as it is. 
Great news, this could be a better reference for future research.
However, as stated on how money is being defined, in the context, I couldn't find any problem. But, the fact that money in its entirety has been defined as a store of value which may proved that every fiat we had, could exponentially grow by just doing typically nothing. And this of course create an issue. The fact that we experienced inflation of our fiat money value against purchasing power didn't make sense at all and also to be considered as store of value?
In addition, the court, US vs Harmon, described the operation of Helix (base in Darknet) as counts against the defendant. Helix enabled users for a fee, to transfer bitcoin and conceal or obfuscate the owner of such bitcoin.
As per se, this should not count as violation because bitcoin is already anonymous and the exchange protects its users privacy to the extent, is great. The court should perhaps deal Helix internally because they are operating illecit transfer of illegal substances, guns, and etc., and not the concept of bitcoin as its nature.
However, as stated on how money is being defined, in the context, I couldn't find any problem. But, the fact that money in its entirety has been defined as a store of value which may proved that every fiat we had, could exponentially grow by just doing typically nothing. And this of course create an issue. The fact that we experienced inflation of our fiat money value against purchasing power didn't make sense at all and also to be considered as store of value?
In addition, the court, US vs Harmon, described the operation of Helix (base in Darknet) as counts against the defendant. Helix enabled users for a fee, to transfer bitcoin and conceal or obfuscate the owner of such bitcoin.
As per se, this should not count as violation because bitcoin is already anonymous and the exchange protects its users privacy to the extent, is great. The court should perhaps deal Helix internally because they are operating illecit transfer of illegal substances, guns, and etc., and not the concept of bitcoin as its nature.
Wow, those are some great news, i hope my country adopt bitcoin as money soon too, that way the business can charge BTC and give a tax ticket. Right now they can't do that because in México bitcoin is considered a 'digital active' and not money.
I was surprised by the decision by the judge here. Most of the time we will hear verdict against the operator of bitcoin trading platform as illegal, but this time the outcome was. very difficult. But I agree that this is a good news indeed, it could set another precedence and this can be use as 'set of rules'. We might see more court cases in the future turn the tide against bitcoin enthusiast here.
Jump to: