On 18 May 2014 01:23, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: > "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. > You may be interested in this site: http://bitlegal.net/list.php A country by country list of what lawyers have said about bitcoin. What it is, what it isnt and which laws apply. > > 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 Sunday, 18 May 2014 10:03:53 UTC