RE: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is available for comments

Tobie Langel wrote:
So, I really don't think there's any issue with using cryptocurrency in the context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's explicit.

+1.  Inventing terminology here could be quite confusing.  It’s up to governments to decide the legality, but that’s a different issue.

From: Tobie Langel [mailto:tobie.langel@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Joseph Potvin
Cc: Stephane Boyera; team-webpayments-workshop-announcement@w3.org; public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org
Subject: Re: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is available for comments

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca<mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org<mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
> > The case of cryptocurrencies or digital
> > currencies is more problematic. i got your point, and i agree with it,
> > however, this is quite a generic name, independently of the legal status of
> > a currency or not isn't it?
> > Is there a way we could mention these emerging payment options through the
> > use of a neutral word?
>
> [JRP1:]  A neutral term could be "electronic tokens" which can be a
> type of "electronic media of exchange" regardless of whether or not
> they are deemed to represent a currency in and of themselves  I wonder
> if anyone from the Ripple, Ven, Bitcoin+derivatives communities on
> these lists might let us know if my suggestion would bother them, or
> if it's a reasonable compromise considering the W3C's need (well, I
> reckon it's a need) to steer clear or taking sides in the ongoing
> juridical interpretations worldwide.

Cryptocurrency is the commonly used terminology. Event though the IRS doesn't treat cryptocurrencies as legal currencies (which I suspect was the case you were referring to, Joseph), it still calls them virtual currencies[1]. So, I really don't think there's any issue with using cryptocurrency in the context of the charter. Quite the contrary: it's explicit.

--tobie

---
[1]: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

________________________________
This electronic message, including attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or company named above or to which it is addressed. The information contained in this message shall be considered confidential and proprietary, and may include confidential work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this email immediately.