In another Bruce update for you fans
http://elbitcoin.org/cual-es-el-estatus-legal-de-bitcoin/ translated from spanish
What is the legal status of Bitcoin? - Interview with Matt Wagner Bruce Hutchins
by Majamalu on 15/09/2011 in MEDIA , OPINION
Spanish translation of excerpts highlights of the interview with Matt Wagner Bruce Hutchins , the first lawyer Bitcoin, in episode 44 of The Bitcoin Show - issued by OnlyOneTV on September 8, 2011:
Bruce Wagner: The legal implications of Bitcoin are so complex and fascinating as its technical aspects - although in very different ways: one is extremely logical and the other is extremely legal ... [laughs].
Matt Hutchins: Well, let's say the legal aspect has its own logic. I feel a great admiration for Gavin and his entire technical team are making a great contribution to the community ... in fact the Internet as a whole, to develop this technology we call Bitcoin. Every new technology has legal implications. I'm not here to talk about particular applications of existing laws to Bitcoin, but rather to explain why some people should consider these legal issues from the perspective of law, and consider legal advice.
BW: We need to know many things about it. (...) We have old laws can not be easily applied to new technologies, especially something as revolutionary as Bitcoin.
MH: (...) When dealing with legal questions, we must take into account all the possible answers, and think through all the words we use, how they can be interpreted. What perspective can outweigh?, What perspective can serve my interests? ... What will most likely be taken by either party? - Such as a prosecutor or a regulator. We can not ignore that.
BW: The same term can have a very different meaning in the street and in court. So for example Bitcoin can be defined by many as virtual money, but what is money?, Is it virtual? That bitcoin.org Bitcoin say that money does not mean it fits the legal definition of money. And even from the legal point of view there may be differences between states, countries, etc.
MH: Right. If you look at the French court case - which has generated much interest in the community Bitcoin - one of the aspects under discussion is whether or not it is Bitcoin money. Because if it is considered money, falls under a regulatory regime, but if it is merely an intangible form of property, then you will apply other regulations.
As a store of value one can actually use anything as long as one considers that this will preserve value over time. Gold is generally accepted as a means of preserving the value, but as a medium of exchange is not really very practical. So, for their resemblance to gold, is likely to Bitcoin also has an important role as a means of preserving the value. But in many ways be said to be better than gold because it is very easy to transfer, it is potentially safer (just a good password to secure possession of bitcoins) is a great facilitator of transactions (although the economic infrastructure is under development, and many people are reluctant to spend bitcoins just for his optimism about the future of the system).
One of the most important aspects of the legal definition of money is it has to have a national identity. Bitcoin has never been used as currency, but do not rule out the possibility, under certain ciscunstancias, a country could abolish its own currency and adopt Bitcoin as national currency. How would that affect the legal status of Bitcoin?, Would it change from such a decision by a government?
One reason could be considered a Bitcoin as a form of money is that exchange markets exist, and therefore in practice bitcoins are treated as money. (...)
Unlike most commodities tangible, the bitcoins are electronic, have virtually no transaction cost, fungible, extremely divisible, and can be exchanged quickly through large amounts of monetary signs through the Internet, paving the conversion between currencies.
BW: And cancel the geographical distances and political boundaries. It is so extraordinary ... Let's see, what other ways can be defined Bitcoin?
MH: There are many categories in which Bitcoin would fit, and are not all mutually exclusive. Could be characterized as a title or value. I think it is wrong because they have securities or corporate issuer. In my opinion it looks more like a commodity ; bitcoins own is like owning an amount of carbon stored in a container. This ownership is transferable. If you own shares of, say, Microsoft, the value of what you have will depend on future earnings of the company, ie the decisions of their principals, market conditions, etc.. There are no future gains in terms of bitcoins; the bitcoins itself generated no profits will be distributed among the owners of bitcoins (a bitcoin today will be a bitcoin in 10 years).
Bitcoin regards as a store of value (as the typical legal definition) ... a definition seems attractive, but Bitcoin not involve a contract - based on which a claim may in the future value. Bitcoins Have not imply a relationship with an issuer.
I would say Bitcoin is a commodity -mail. But even this definition does not close at all. You do not have a number of bitcoins it, have a rather equivalent bitcoin have the authority to transfer ownership of that bitcoin to another person, who really do not get a bitcoin but - in turn - the authority to transfer ownership that bitcoin. This forms a chain: the chain of blocks. In other words, all one has is a private key that allows you to sign a transaction (transferring ownership of bitcoins). It is this key which has a fluctuating value. (...)
