Topic: What is the legal definition of Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 5303 times)
There is still confusion in Bitcoin's classification as a commodity, an asset and as currency. I agree.
I am not asking what should we legally define Bitcoin as (money, commodity, etc).
I am asking...what is Bitcoin? Legally speaking.
The definition usually has to do with saying it is a decentralized p2p currency.
Any definition of Bitcoin would need to include the Blockchain. But the Blockchain is constantly changing. The only way to define how it can change is through the code. But the code can change. It is open source and changeable. The only way to define how that can change is by defining who can change it and how.
If I were to put in my will "I leave my son one bitcoin" how can that legally be executed? If I advertise my house for 1000 bitcoins, if someone gives me 1000 bitcoins from when it forked 2 years ago, how would that legally be settled?
I am asking...what is Bitcoin? Legally speaking.
The definition usually has to do with saying it is a decentralized p2p currency.
Any definition of Bitcoin would need to include the Blockchain. But the Blockchain is constantly changing. The only way to define how it can change is through the code. But the code can change. It is open source and changeable. The only way to define how that can change is by defining who can change it and how.
If I were to put in my will "I leave my son one bitcoin" how can that legally be executed? If I advertise my house for 1000 bitcoins, if someone gives me 1000 bitcoins from when it forked 2 years ago, how would that legally be settled?
Law is a matter of geography (jurisdiction).
The answer will depend entirely on where you are standing at the time.
The only way to define how it can change is through the code. But the code can change. It is open source and changeable. The only way to define how that can change is by defining who can change it and how.
Laws have to evolve - to reflect the change.
But in terms of initial definition/a starting point, how about Satoshi's whitepaper ?
I am not asking what should we legally define Bitcoin as (money, commodity, etc).
I am asking...what is Bitcoin? Legally speaking.
The definition usually has to do with saying it is a decentralized p2p currency.
Any definition of Bitcoin would need to include the Blockchain. But the Blockchain is constantly changing. The only way to define how it can change is through the code. But the code can change. It is open source and changeable. The only way to define how that can change is by defining who can change it and how.
If I were to put in my will "I leave my son one bitcoin" how can that legally be executed? If I advertise my house for 1000 bitcoins, if someone gives me 1000 bitcoins from when it forked 2 years ago, how would that legally be settled?
I am asking...what is Bitcoin? Legally speaking.
The definition usually has to do with saying it is a decentralized p2p currency.
Any definition of Bitcoin would need to include the Blockchain. But the Blockchain is constantly changing. The only way to define how it can change is through the code. But the code can change. It is open source and changeable. The only way to define how that can change is by defining who can change it and how.
If I were to put in my will "I leave my son one bitcoin" how can that legally be executed? If I advertise my house for 1000 bitcoins, if someone gives me 1000 bitcoins from when it forked 2 years ago, how would that legally be settled?
Let us assume that a country wants to make Bitcoin it's legal currency. Or it wants to pass a law specifically about Bitcoin.
How could it legally be defined?
Could they just say "Our country recognizes the following currencies to be legal forms of exchange, bitcoin, ..."
With its decentralized nature and evolving blockchain, would there not be a requirement to have some sort of central authority which would continue to update the definition of Bitcoin? What if there is a branch off due to a code change, something is added and some miners accept it and some do not. What source of the code would be considered the "official" source? etc..
So far countries have been able to just group "cryptocurrencies or digital currencies" into one group which covers many things. But at some point it will probably be necessary to legally define Bitcoin. Not just as a country's currency but via contract disputes, payment agreements, property laws, etc...
How could it legally be defined?
Could they just say "Our country recognizes the following currencies to be legal forms of exchange
With its decentralized nature and evolving blockchain, would there not be a requirement to have some sort of central authority which would continue to update the definition of Bitcoin? What if there is a branch off due to a code change, something is added and some miners accept it and some do not. What source of the code would be considered the "official" source? etc..
So far countries have been able to just group "cryptocurrencies or digital currencies" into one group which covers many things. But at some point it will probably be necessary to legally define Bitcoin. Not just as a country's currency but via contract disputes, payment agreements, property laws, etc...
There are many legal definitions that may be used. Here are a few of the more common, there are many others. I may do a paper on this at some point.
Legal Tender
Legal Tender laws tend to require that they be accepted in payment of debt. This creates a burden on the entire population governed by such law. (I do not favor ANY legal tender law, as they are non-voluntary and tend to cause at least as much problems as they address.) Payment by agreement and negotiation ought be sufficient. Those that take recourse in courts of law may be subjected to that court'w ruling with or without a Legal Tender law.
Lawful Money
In the USA, the state of California has adopted Bitcoin as Lawful Money. This means that it can be used as money. It does not require someone to accept it, but there is no restriction on doing so. California needed to do this because of some of their other weird laws.
Asset
Like any real asset, subject to capital gains with each transaction.
Contraband
Ecuador appears to be moving this route, where any possession of bitcoin may be cause for seizure of it.
It depends on the country but they've already given it a definition as shares or assets but I would define it as 'Money' it's not really a currency yet because there hasn't been enough adoption but it is being used as one, the problem is with Bitcoin that there are too many conflicts of interests to have a reliable law definition from an actual government, so I just ignore them. At the learning rate of our current bureaucratic and democratic system it will probably be several years before we finally see them actually make any kind of definite verdict on Bitcoin, but by then I suspect their organisations would have all collapsed anyway.
Laws are meant to control behavior, not math. There are already laws that cover how Bitcoin is used, they just have to figure out which ones they are. Their choice of regulation will determine their involvement in the new economy.
Let us assume that a country wants to make Bitcoin it's legal currency. Or it wants to pass a law specifically about Bitcoin.
How could it legally be defined?
Could they just say "Our country recognizes the following currencies to be legal forms of exchange, bitcoin, ..."
With its decentralized nature and evolving blockchain, would there not be a requirement to have some sort of central authority which would continue to update the definition of Bitcoin? What if there is a branch off due to a code change, something is added and some miners accept it and some do not. What source of the code would be considered the "official" source? etc..
So far countries have been able to just group "cryptocurrencies or digital currencies" into one group which covers many things. But at some point it will probably be necessary to legally define Bitcoin. Not just as a country's currency but via contract disputes, payment agreements, property laws, etc...
How could it legally be defined?
Could they just say "Our country recognizes the following currencies to be legal forms of exchange
With its decentralized nature and evolving blockchain, would there not be a requirement to have some sort of central authority which would continue to update the definition of Bitcoin? What if there is a branch off due to a code change, something is added and some miners accept it and some do not. What source of the code would be considered the "official" source? etc..
So far countries have been able to just group "cryptocurrencies or digital currencies" into one group which covers many things. But at some point it will probably be necessary to legally define Bitcoin. Not just as a country's currency but via contract disputes, payment agreements, property laws, etc...
Jump to: