- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 19:23:11 -0400
- To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Cc: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
"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