- From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 18:05:45 +0200
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- CC: "team-webpayments-workshop-announcement@w3.org" <team-webpayments-workshop-announcement@w3.org>, public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
My 2cts (personal opinion, not with a chair hat) *"electronic tokens" while neutral would hardly convey the meaning of cryptocurrencies. *Some cryptocurrencies are not recognized in some regulations, but some are recognized in others. therefore, it is not abut citing something which is illegal. The objectives of this group imho is to provide technologies that will fit with all regulations. Therefore, citing cryptocurrencies is a perfect example, as we will have to deal with such cases where a given payment solution is allowed in some countries and not in other. Therefore, it is right to cite it in the list of use cases we will cover steph Le 27/05/2014 17:53, Joseph Potvin a écrit : > RE: "Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, > or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as > “convertible” virtual currency." Source: > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf > > Tobie, > > (a) Having worked a decade in a government central agency, I can spot > a confused government bureaucrat pretty quickly. > (b) The W3C needs to use language that comfortably spans jurisdictions. > (c) Several jurisdictions incl China are explicit that BTC is a > commodity, not a currency. Therefore buying something with it is a > form of barter, like trading the rights to some of your digital photos > in exchange for some egg rolls. > (d) You did not say what you think of my suggestion of "electronic > tokens" as neutral, routine, yet precise language > > Joseph > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Stephane Boyera <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 > > > -- Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org W3C +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27 BP 93 F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 16:06:30 UTC