W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > July 2014

Re: legal hurdle achievement unlocked

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:50:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSpxU=WunjBYh8VtH7NhwYX4d53A1yhnqaaCawe9HcjT8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "pretty significant, at first glance"

Agree, but on second glance, not so much.

What was repealed was California Corporations Code Section 107, which
reads as follows:

"107.  No corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association or
individual shall issue or put in circulation, as money, anything but
the lawful money of the United States."


I ran the following semantic experiment in my cranium: Express the
repeal of a negative rule, by stating it in the positive:

"Any corporation, flexible purpose corporation, association or
individual may issue or put in circulation, as money, anything."

I wonder if THAT logical counterpart would have passed into law?  It
certainly then leads to the following dialogue:
As what?
As money.
What's that mean in law?

It remains unfortunately ambiguous that this new legal scenario in
Calif says nothing about what units contracts & payments within Calif.
can be expressed in and settled in, if the terms are to be legally
enforceable on the same basis as contracts & payments expressed in
USD. I reckon that the only directly enforceable unit remains "the
lawful money of the United States".  The repeal has only to do with
"issuing" not "use".  Do all Calif. vendors now NEED to specify WHICH
units of account they are willing to accept? (i.e. Exactly this is
enabled  simply in my Paris proposal for the W3C Web Payments Spec:
The payment solution would default to national currency, but can be
expanded by the seller to offer some payment unit choices to the
buyer.) Otherwise the seller MUST accept "as money" the load of
firewood that Fred is offering? Hardly!

What this Calif repeal means I reckon is: "Issue whatever you like;
the only enforceable payment unit remains USD."

Joseph Potvin

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 July 2014 18:16, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
>> www.cnet.com/news/california-governor-signs-bill-legalizing-bitcoin-other-digital-currencies
> I think this is actually pretty significant, at first glance.
> Hopefully now digital and paper currencies can compete on a relatively level
> playing field, with each showing pros and cons.
>> --
>> Sometimes I imply things, or include important information in pictures.
>> Without a request for clarification, I will assume I was clear, which can
>> cause later problems when I wasn't. So please ask me to clarify anything
>> that seems ambiguous. Doing so is not rude. Thank you.

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
Mobile: 819-593-5983
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 01:51:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:32 UTC