Bitcoin, Emerging Payments Task Force, US Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS).

"We may be looking at some type of model definitions, or model laws"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/17/us-bitcoin-rules-idUKBREA4G08P20140517

...seems to be an approach based on / derived from UNICITRAL's WG IV
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html

Note: As far as I have heard, each time a court (internationally) has
considered "What is a bitcoin?" they have determined it is a "virtual
commodity" and not "money". That's to say they determine that it's
similar to an encrypted digital photo.

By comparison, for an interesting read about what papermonetary notes
are and are not, see this Canadian Supreme court case:
http://www.rdo-olr.uottawa.ca/index2.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=dd_download&fid=891&Itemid=842
I think (i.e. still validating this) in later years via UNCITRAL,
participating countries determined to clarify that the paper monetary
instrument was "the medium" (a promissory note) and not necessarily
the sole container of "the message" (monetary value). The relevance to
Bitcoin is that this distinction ought to hold. In the case of m-Pesa,
the text message is the medium.
-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 23:23:58 UTC