- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 09:02:23 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, ztaylor@bitlegal.io
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Melvin (and Zachary),Good site,. and the links to the source documents from each country are certainly useful. However it seems to me the summaries on bitlegal.net use terminology very loosely. In a multi-jurisdictional context, that's necessary when paraphrasing -- I'd have considered that direct translations of excerpts of the official statements or court decisions would be more helpful than all the paraphrasing. When "Norway permits use and ownership of Bitcoin, but it is not currency " and yet the site refers to Bitcoin as a currency, it's clear the site itself is not a neutral reporter. So the site would be improved if it had a glossary with what the site maintainers consider to be their authoritative source definitions of key terms. The site should also emphasized the distinction between policy statements, versus legislation and court decisions. -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 13:03:11 UTC