Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Bitcoin and Mobile Payments pp 89–120Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

A Fuzzy Set in the Legal Domain: Bitcoins According to US Legal Formants

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Financial Services Technology ((FST))

Abstract

Reviews and journals are currently revolving the topic of cryptocurrencies, even if, so far, the domain of law has not found the spur to adequately and univocally frame this phenomenon. Nonetheless, the US legal theory is presently debating how to include Bitcoins into pre-existing “regulatory folders”, while the country’s judiciary is dealing with the first cases pertaining to Bitcoins. The reaction of the US legal system to this radical technological innovation demonstrates that the operational rules resulting from the joint action of the legal formants may grant a legal system a first response by relying merely on its own legal tools. In light of this, the present article investigates the reactions to Bitcoin and the potentially suitable regulatory frameworks proposed by US legal theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a detailed description of the system and its functioning, see the original paper of Bitcoins’ developer, S. Nakamoto, namely, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System (2009), available at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.

  2. 2.

    Joshua J. Doguet, “The Nature of the Form: Legal and Regulatory Issues Surrounding the Bitcoin Digital Currency System”, Louisiana L. Rev . 73, no. 4 (2013): 1119 ff. Jeffrey Alberts and Bert Fry, “Is Bitcoin a Security?”, B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 21, (2015): 1, 2–3.

  3. 3.

    Benjamin Wallace, The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin, Wired Magazine (23 November 2011), available at www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/. Bitcoin exchanges, like BTC China or Bitfinex are online platforms through which users can purchase Bitcoins with traditional fiat currencies. For an overview of worldwide Bitcoin exchanges, see http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/.

  4. 4.

    Examples thereof are: (i) the use of Bitcoins for criminal activities due to the anonymity of the peer-to-peer system; (ii) the threat Bitcoins pose to national sovereignty since they do not fall under the purview of domestic or international monetary policies (hence, they may become a sort of ‘tax haven’); (iii) the lack of a central authority which prevents any potential intervention in case of excessive inflation or deflation; (iv) finally, no entity is in charge of establishing a uniform interest rate. Primavera De Filippi, “Bitcoin: A Regulatory Nightmare To A Libertarian Dream”, in Internet Policy Review 3, no. 2 (2014), 2 ff.

  5. 5.

    Sarah Jane Hughes and Stephen T. Middlebrook, “Regulating Cryptocurrencies In The United States: Current Issues And Future Directions”, Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 40, (2014): 813. See Juliya Ziskina, “The Other Side of the Coin: The Fec’s Move to Approve Cryptocurrency’s Use and Deny Its Viability”, Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 10, (2015): 10 and Michael W. Meredith and Kevin V. Tu, “Rethinking Virtual Currency Regulation in the Bitcoin Age”, Wash. L. Rev. 90 (2015): 271.

  6. 6.

    As to Liberty Reserve, this requirement was said to add another layer to the anonymity of the system, according to U.S. government. Ibid.

  7. 7.

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-516, Virtual Economies And Currencies: Additional IRS Guidance Could Reduce Tax Compliance Risks 3 (2013): this source is mentioned in Lawrence Trautman, “Virtual Currencies Bitcoin & What Now After Liberty Reserve, Silk Road, and Mt. Gox?”, Rich. J.L. & Tech . 20, (2014): 13. See also: Joni Larson, “Bitcoin: Same Song, Second Verse, a Little Bit Louder and Little Bit Worse”, MI Tax L. 41, (2015): 34.

  8. 8.

    Notwithstanding those failures, other business entities have decided to have a try at developing their virtual currency, among which, for instance, Amazon. Hughes and Middlebrook, Regulating Cryptocurrencies In The United States, 813 ff.; Jerry Brito, Andrea Castillo and Houman Shadab, “Bitcoin Financial Regulation: Securities, Derivatives, Prediction markets, and Gambling”, Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 16, (2014): 144.

  9. 9.

    Lawrence H. White, “The Troubling Suppression of Competition from Alternative Monies: The Cases of the Liberty Dollar and E-gold”, George Mason University, Department of Economics, Working Paper No 06 (2014): p. 5 ff.

  10. 10.

    Nikolei M. Kaplanov, “Nerdy Money: Bitcoin, the Private Digital Currency, and the Case Against Its Regulation”, Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 25, (2012): 111, 116.

  11. 11.

    White, “The Troubling Suppression of Competition from Alternative Monies”, p. 3 ff.

  12. 12.

    Ibid. Those certificates amounted to 1, 5 or 10 Dollars.

  13. 13.

    Cf. United States Mint, “Liberty Dollars Not Legal Tender, United States Mint Warns Consumers”, (14 Sept. 2006), available at http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/?action=press_release&id=710&pf.

  14. 14.

    Paul Gilkes, “Liberty Dollars may be subject to seizure”, Coin World (12 September 2011), available at http://www.coinworld.com/articles/liberty-dollars-may-be-subject-to-seizure.

  15. 15.

    White, “The Troubling Suppression of Competition from Alternative Monies”, p. 3 ff.

  16. 16.

    Remittances have been largely affected by the various legal changes brought forth by electronic payments and financial services. For an analysis of how the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has adjusted the cross-border remittance transfer rule in light of the aforementioned changes, see: Hughes and Middlebrook, “Virtual Uncertainty: Developments in the Law of Electronic Payments and Financial Services”, 263 ff.

  17. 17.

    As claimed by E-gold founder, in White, “The Troubling Suppression of Competition from Alternative Monies”, 12 ff.

  18. 18.

    For an overview of FinCEN regulations, see infra, the paragraph titled USA.

  19. 19.

    In December 2013, the European Bank Authority stepped into the debate on Bitcoins, issuing a formal ‘Warning to consumers on digital currencies’. (cf. http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/15971/EBA+Warning+on+Virtual+Currencies.pdf 2013). Such document aimed at informing investors of the risks connected to the use of virtual currencies, above all, in relation to the ‘volatility’ of such currencies and the potential thefts, warning also about the fact that if providers of such services were found to be involved in illicit activities, the judicial authority may release a seizure warrant concerning all assets, including those of law-abiding customers. Cf. Cesare Maioli and Maria Letizia Perugini, “Bitcoin tra Moneta Virtuale e Commodity Finanziaria”, 17 November 2014: 7 ff. available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2526207. In general, however, the position of the EU in relation to Bitcoins is far from clear. So, the EU has not taken any specific position as to the legal status of Bitcoins and Member Countries are left free to decide whether or not to regulate such matter and how to govern it. For instance, the Danish government has declared that the gains or losses generated from casual Bitcoin transactions are exempt from taxation.

  20. 20.

    According to the website bitlegal.io, most of the countries in Europe, along with the USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Brazil, and some Asian countries display a ‘permissive’ approach to Bitcoins, which however in most cases means that no official guidelines or regulations have been passed yet. Whereas, Russia, China, India, Thailand, Jordan and Mexico are defined as ‘contentious’. No data are available concerning many African and South America states. Cf. http://bitlegal.io/(last visited September 2015).

  21. 21.

    Lei n° 12.865, of 9 October 2013; Article 6-VI.

  22. 22.

    De Filippi, “Bitcoin: A Regulatory Nightmare To A Libertarian Dream”, 2 ff.

  23. 23.

    Maioli and Perugini, “Bitcoin tra Moneta Virtuale e Commodity Finanziaria”, 7 ff.

  24. 24.

    Apparently, Vietnamese citizens may own Bitcoins, since the ban on the ownership of the cryptocurrency applies to financial institutions only (cf. http://bitlegal.io/ (last visited December 2014).

  25. 25.

    Matt Clinch, Bitcoin Banned in Thailand, CNBC (30 July 2013, 6:20 AM), http://www.cnbc.com/id/100923551: for further information see: Paul H. Farmer Jr., “Speculative Tech: The Bitcoin Legal Quagmire & the Need for Legal Innovation”, J. Bus. & Tech. L. 9, (2014): 85. Available at http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl/vol9/iss1/6.

  26. 26.

    De Filippi, “Bitcoin: A Regulatory Nightmare To A Libertarian Dream”, 2 ff.

  27. 27.

    Farmer Jr., “Speculative Tech: The Bitcoin Legal”, 85 ff.

  28. 28.

    Namely, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, China Securities Regulatory Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission. See: White, “The Troubling Suppression of Competition from Alternative Monies”, 2 ff.

  29. 29.

    Maioli and Perugini, “Bitcoin tra Moneta Virtuale e Commodity Finanziaria”, 7 ff. According to Bitlegal.io, China restricts business uses of Bitcoins but permits individuals to own and use Bitcoins in commercial transactions ‘at their own risk’. (PBOC Bank Notice No. 239, 2013. Cf. http://bitlegal.io/nation/CN.php.

  30. 30.

    Notwithstanding the ban, according to the figures of Bitcoincharts.com, BTC China ranks 1st among Bitcoin global service providers with a volume of 4,189,570.452 Bitcoins (cf. http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/ visited on 23 December 2014, whereas U.S. Bitcoin exchanges amount to roughly one-fourth of the Chinese share).

  31. 31.

    Cf. http://www.techinasia.com/china-banks-must-closebitcoin-trading-bank1-accounts/ 2014. See: Maioli and Perugini, “Bitcoin tra Moneta Virtuale e Commodity Finanziaria”, 9 ff.

  32. 32.

    In Singapore citizens are allowed to own, buy, transact and mine Bitcoins, which are however not regarded as a currency, but as a ‘taxable service’. Cf. http://bitlegal.io/nation/SG.php.

  33. 33.

    Finland has recently defined Bitcoins as a VAT-exempt financial service (Ruling of the Finnish Central Board of Taxes, n. 034/2014, of November 2014). Cf. http://bitlegal.io/nation/FI.php. Kati Pohjanpalo, Bitcoin Judged Commodity in Finland After Failing Money Test, Bloomberg.com (20 January 2014, 4:50 AM), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-19/bitcoin-becomes-commodity-in-finland-after-failing-currency-test.

  34. 34.

    De Filippi, “Bitcoin: A Regulatory Nightmare To A Libertarian Dream”, 2 ff.

  35. 35.

    Darshan S. Vaishampayan, Bitcoins are Private Money in Germany, Wall St. J., The Tell (blog), available at http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/08/19/bitcoins-are-private-money-in-germany/. More details in: Paul H. Farmer Jr., supra note 27. E. D. Jeans, “Funny Money or the Fall of Fiat: Bitcoin and the Forward-Facing Virtual Currency Regulation”, J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L . 13, (2015): 99.

  36. 36.

    Cf. Australian Currency Act 2001.

  37. 37.

    Rhys Bollen, “The Legal Status Of Online Currencies, Are Bitcoins The Future?”, J. Banking & Fin. L. & Prac. (2013): 1–38.

  38. 38.

    Cf. https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Gen/Tax-treatment-of-crypto-currencies-in-Australia—specifically-bitcoin/.

  39. 39.

    ASIC’s Senate Inquiry is available at http://bitlegal.net/nation/AU.php. Anita Ramasastry, Bitcoin: If You Can’t Ban It, Should You Regulate It? The Merits of Legalization, Justia.com (25 February 2014), http://verdict.justia.com/2014/02/25/bitcoin-cant-ban-regulate#sthash.4oUpDzhi.dpuf.

  40. 40.

    Matthew Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”: Examining The Regulatory Framework For Bitcoin And Virtual Currencies”, 27 Harv. J. Law & Tec 27, no. 2, (2014): 587 ff.

  41. 41.

    The FinCEN guidance document “Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies.” For an overview of the guidance on virtual currencies issued by the FinCEN, see Sarah Jane Hughes and Stephen T. Middlebrook, supra note 16.

  42. 42.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 587 ff.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Joshua Fairfield, “Bitproperty”, in 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. (2015): 805 ff.

  44. 44.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 587 ff.

  45. 45.

    Farmer Jr., “Speculative Tech: The Bitcoin Legal”, 85 ff.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 587 ff.

  48. 48.

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice of 31 March 2014.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr1407171-vc.pdf.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer.

  53. 53.

    Casey Doherty, “Bitcoin and Bankruptcy—Understanding the Newest Potential Commodity”, in 33–7 ABIJ 38, 2014.

  54. 54.

    Securities and Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers and Bitcoin Savings and Trust, Civil Action No. Civil Action No. 4:13-CV-416. The complaint filed by SEC which started the court litigation action against Shavers is available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf.

  55. 55.

    Daniel Gwen and David E. Kronenberg, “Bitcoins in Bankruptcy: Trouble Ahead for Investors and Bankruptcy Professionals?”, Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law, February/March (2014): 112–121.

  56. 56.

    Cf. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Cf. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2014/lr23090.htm.

  59. 59.

    Gwen and Kronenberg, “Bitcoins in Bankruptcy”, 112 ff.

  60. 60.

    Cf. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf.

  61. 61.

    Gwen and Kronenberg, “Bitcoins in Bankruptcy”, 112 ff.

  62. 62.

    Casey Doherty, “Bitcoin and Bankruptcy”. A swap is a contract in which each counterparty agrees to an exchange of payments related to the value or return of some underlying asset or event. The structure of Bitcoin swaps may resemble a foreign exchange (FX) swap. In an FX swap, two parties borrow a foreign currency from each other and agree to pay each other back at a specified exchange rate.

  63. 63.

    In re CLI Holdings, Case No. 13–19,746 (W.D. Wash. 2013).

  64. 64.

    Specifically, in exchange for a yearly fee, CLI Holdings ‘would set up, maintain, and operate the hardware necessary to mine Bitcoin for large institutional investors, with any Bitcoins mined belonging to the investors’ (Gwen and Kronenberg, “Bitcoins in Bankruptcy”, 112 ff).

  65. 65.

    All documents concerning the case In Re CLI Holdings Inc. are available at http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/unc1p5dn/washington-western-bankruptcy-court/cli-holdings-inc/.

  66. 66.

    Casey Doherty, “Bitcoin and Bankruptcy”.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Motion to Reject Executory Contracts, cf. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/unc1p5dn/washington-western-bankruptcy-court/cli-holdings-inc/.

  68. 68.

    Casey Doherty, “Bitcoin and Bankruptcy”.

  69. 69.

    Cf. Motion For Order Approving Notice Of Sale, Bidding Procedures Order, And Setting Hearing On Sale Of Assets And Granting Other Relief, available at http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/unc1p5dn/washington-western-bankruptcy-court/cli-holdings-inc/.

  70. 70.

    Casey Doherty, “Bitcoin and Bankruptcy”.

  71. 71.

    The author affirms that Bitcoin-holders face confusion over how they can perfect their interest, that is, as a commodity, as a security or as simple cash. Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Since Bitvestment had no lien on the rigs, if the court had approved their sale, the former would have been left quite vulnerable.

  73. 73.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 588 ff. A similar attempt to identify the applicable source of law/regulation under U.S. legal system is carried out by Nikolei M. Kaplanov: Kaplanov, “Nerdy Money, 11 ff.

  74. 74.

    This regulation was codified in Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter X, the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970.

  75. 75.

    FinCEN’s Mandate from Congress, Dep’t Of The Treasury Fin. Crimes Enforcement Network, http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/bsa.

  76. 76.

    Cf. 31 USC § 5312 et seq., http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5312.

  77. 77.

    Cf. 31 USC § 5312 (3) et seq., http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5312.

  78. 78.

    A note can be either a negotiable instrument or a security. See Reves, 494 U.S. at 67 (discussing the family resemblance test as it applies to the differentiation between notes). A Bitcoin is not a negotiable instrument because it is not an ‘unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money’. U.C.C. § 3–104(a) (2013). To determine whether a note is a security the courts apply the family resemblance test on which see Reves, 494 U.S. at 67 and Farmer Jr. argues that applying that very same test a court might also qualify Bitcoins as a security (Farmer Jr., footnote 25, 99–100). Although, in this author’s opinion, this is a merely a stratagem to do away with anonymity in this area.

  79. 79.

    In the case of stocks the Supreme Court has identified main features as ‘(i) the right to receive dividends contingent upon an apportionment of profits; (ii) negotiability; (iii) the ability to be pledged or hypothecated; (iv) the conferring of voting rights in proportion to the number of shares owned; and (v) the capacity to appreciate in value.’ United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 851 (1975). Bitcoins, although transferable and able to appreciate, do not carry the right to a dividend, the right to vote nor, any other rights at all connected to any legal entity.

  80. 80.

    Investment contracts have been defined as ‘contract[s], transaction[s], or scheme[s] whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.’ SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298–99 (1946). To determine whether a contract qualifies as an investment contract, courts apply the three pronged Howey test requiring proof of (i) an investment of money, (ii) a common enterprise, and (iii) the expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. And Bitcoins fail two of these three prongs. First, Bitcoin purchasers who buy Bitcoins anticipating profits do not expect these profits to result from the actions of a promoter but on market forces. In addition to that, the protocol does not rely on third parties and each party acting in the Bitcoins system acts wholly in self-interest. This is not to say ‘there could be no securities involving Bitcoins; indeed, equity interests in exchanges or other businesses dealing in the periphery of the Bitcoin economy would obviously be securities’. J. Scott Colesanti, “Trotting Out the White Horse: How the S.E.C. can handle Bitcoin’s Threat to American Investors”, Syracuse L. Rev. 65, (2015): 1 ff.; Nicole D. Swartz, “Bursting the Bitcoin Bubble: The Case To Regulate Digital Currency as a Security or Commodity”, Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 17, (2014): 319, 329–330.

  81. 81.

    18 U.S.C. § 336.

  82. 82.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 587 ff.

  83. 83.

    Van Auken, 96 U.S. at 367–68.

  84. 84.

    According to some legal scholars, Bitcoin cannot fall under the scope of the Stamp Payments Act for it does not possess the above-mentioned ‘physical’ characteristics that distinguish money (cf. Joshua J. Doguet, supra note 2).

  85. 85.

    15 U.S.C. § 1693(b) (2012).

  86. 86.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s ‘Legal-Bits’”, 587 ff.

  87. 87.

    18 U.S. Code, Ch. 96.

  88. 88.

    Cf. 18 U.S. Code, § 1963 – Criminal Penalties, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1963.

  89. 89.

    18 U.S. Code, § 1962 – Prohibited Activities, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1962.

  90. 90.

    18 U.S. Code, § 1961 – Definitions, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961.

  91. 91.

    Kien-Meng Ly, “Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”, 587 ff.

  92. 92.

    Beat Weber, “Can Bitcoin compete with money?”, Journal of Peer Production 4 (2014): 1000 ff., available at http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-4-value-and-currency/invited-comments/can-bitcoincompete-with-money/.

  93. 93.

    Sonal Mittal, Is Bitcoin Money? Bitcoin and Alternate Theories of Money, Independent Writing Project, (Spring 2013).

    According to economics money is traditionally defined as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. Richard W. Rahn, “A Constant Unit of Account”, Cato Journal 30, no. 3 (2010): 521–522. Its legal definition, however, is far more elusive. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines money as ‘[t]he medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency.’ BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 695 (9th Ed. 2009). See U.C.C. § 1–201(b)(24) (2013) and 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(c) (2013). The operative clause here is that, in order for something to be deemed money, it has to be described as such by a government.

  94. 94.

    Ed Howden, “The Crypto-currency Conundrum: Regulating an Uncertain Future”, Emory Int’l L. Rev. 29, (2015): 741–743.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Weber, “Can Bitcoin compete with money?”, 1000 ff.; Eric P. Pacy, “Tales from the Cryptocurrency: On Bitcoin, Square Pegs, and Round Holes”, New Eng. L. Rev. 49, (2014): 121, 138.

  98. 98.

    Weber, “Can Bitcoin compete with money?”, 1000 ff.

  99. 99.

    According to the website bitcoinaverage, on 19 January 2015, the USD average market value of a Bitcoin amounted to USD211,90; on 20 January 2015, the USD average market value of a Bitcoin amounted to USD206,93; on 21 January 2015, the USD average market value of a Bitcoin amounted to USD214,31 and on 22 January 2015, the USD average market value of a Bitcoin amounted to USD232,28 (cf. https://bitcoinaverage.com/#USD).

  100. 100.

    Furthermore, Bitcoin may fall under the definition of ‘commodity’ provided for by the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Houman B. Shadab, Regulating Bitcoin and Block Chain Derivatives, Written Statement to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Global Markets Advisory Committee, Digital Currency Introduction – Bitcoin, 9 October 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2508707.

  101. 101.

    Nowadays, several firms have begun offering Bitcoin derivatives: alongside ICBIT which claims to be the first Bitcoin future Market, in September 2014, OKCoin (a Bitcoin exchange located in China) started offering Bitcoin-USD futures, and a Cyprus-based firm (Anyoption) offers Bitcoins binary options. Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    George Selgin, “Synthetic Commodity Money”, (April 2013), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2000118.

  104. 104.

    Ibid.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Ibid. According to Daniela Sonderegger, “A Regulatory and Economic Perplexity: Bitcoin Needs Just a Bit of Regulation”, Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 47, no. 175 (2015): 205 Bitcoin is Inherently Self-Regulating: ‘Bitcoin is an open source protocol that can be molded and built upon by its users, thereby exhibiting self-regulating qualities’.

  107. 107.

    Reuben Grinberg, “Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency”, Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 4, (2012): 159.

References

  • Alberts, J., & Fry, B. (2015). Is Bitcoin a security? Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 21, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, R. (2013). The legal status of online currencies: Are Bitcoins the future? Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 24, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito, J., Castillo, A., & Shadab, H. B. (2014). Bitcoin financial regulation: Securities, derivatives, prediction markets, and gambling. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 16(2014), 146–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colesanti, J. S. (2014). Trotting out the white horse: How the S.E.C. can handle Bitcoin’s threat to American Investors. Syracuse Law Review, 65, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Filippi, P. (2014). Bitcoin: A regulatory nightmare to a libertarian dream. Internet Policy Review, 3(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, C. (2014). Bitcoin and Bankruptcy – Understanding the newest potential commodity. ABI Journal, 33, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doguet, J. J. (2013). The nature of the form: Legal and regulatory issues surrounding the Bitcoin digital currency system. Louisiana Law Review, 73(4), 1119–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield, J. (2015). Bitproperty. Southern California Law Review, 88, 807–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer Jr., P. H. (2014). Speculative tech: The Bitcoin legal quagmire & the need for legal innovation. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 9, 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilkes, P. (2011). Liberty dollars may be subject to seizure. Coin World Publications. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinberg, R. (2012). Bitcoin: An innovative alternative digital currency. Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal, 4, 159–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwen, D., & Kroenenberg,, D. E. (2014). Bitcoins in bankruptcy: Trouble ahead for investors and bankruptcy professionals? Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law, 112–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howden, E. (2015). The crypto-currency conundrum: Regulating an uncertain future. Emory International Law Review, 29, 742–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. J., & Middlebrook, S. T. (2014). Regulating cryptocurrencies in The United States: Current issues and future directions. Wm. Mitchell Law Review, 40, 813–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. J., & Middlebrook, S. T. (2013). Virtual uncertainty: Developments in the law of electronic payments and financial services. Indiana University legal studies research paper series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeans, E. D. (2015). Funny money or the fall of Fiat: Bitcoin and the forward-facing virtual currency regulation. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 13, 100–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplanov, N. M. (2012). Nerdy money: Bitcoin, the private digital currency, and the case against its regulation. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 25, 111–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kien-Meng Ly, M. (2014). Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”: Examining the regulatory framework for Bitcoin and virtual currencies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 27(2), 587–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. (2015). Bitcoin: Same song, second verse, a little bit louder and little bit worse. Michigan Tax Law, 41, 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maioli, C., & Perugini, M. L. (2014). Bitcoin tra Moneta Virtuale e Commodity Finanziaria. University of Bologna – Research Center of History of Law, Philosophy and Sociology of Law, and Computer Science and Law, pp. 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, M. W., & Kevin, V. T. (2015). Rethinking virtual currency regulation in the Bitcoin age. Washington Law Review, 90, 272–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, S.. (2013). Is Bitcoin money? Bitcoin and alternate theories of money. Independent Writing Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamoto, S. (2009). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacy, E. P. (2014). Tales from the cryptocurrency: On Bitcoin, square pegs, and round holes. New England Law Review, 49, 122–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahn, R. W. (2010). A constant unit of account. Cato Journal, 30(3), 521–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasastry, A. (2014). Bitcoin: If you can’t ban it, should you regulate it? The merits of legalization. Justia.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selgin, G. (2013). Synthetic commodity money. The Cato Institute University of Georgia. Athens. Available at: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  • Shadab, H. B. (2014). Regulating Bitcoin and block chain derivatives. Written Statement to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Global Markets Advisory Committee, Digital Currency Introduction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonderegger, D. (2015). A regulatory and economic perplexity: Bitcoin needs just a bit of regulation. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 47(175), 175–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, N. D. (2014). Bursting the Bitcoin bubble: The case to regulate digital currency as a security or commodity. Tulane Journal Technology & Intellectual Property, 17, 320–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautman, L. (2014). Virtual currencies Bitcoin & what now after Liberty Reserve, Silk Road, and Mt. Gox? Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 20. Available at http://jolt.richmond.edu/v20i4/article13.pdf

  • Vaishampayan, D. S. (2013). Bitcoins are private money in Germany. Wall Street Journal, The Tell (blog).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, B.. (2011). The rise and fall of Bitcoin. Wired Magazine, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B. (2014). Can Bitcoin compete with money? Journal of Peer Production 4. Available at http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-4-value-and-currency/invited-comments/can-bitcoincompete-with-money/

  • White, L. H. (2014). The troubling suppression of competition from alternative monies: The cases of the liberty dollar and E-gold. George Mason University, Department of Economics, Working paper no. 6, pp. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziskina, J. (2015). The other side of the coin: The Fec’s move to approve cryptocurrency’s use and deny its viability. Washington Journal of Law Technology and Arts, 10, 306–327.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Sciences, Second University of Naples, University of Naples, Italy

    Andrea Borroni (Tenured researcher, “Jean Monnet”)

Authors
  1. Andrea Borroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Siena , Siena, Italy

    Gabriella Gimigliano

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borroni, A. (2016). A Fuzzy Set in the Legal Domain: Bitcoins According to US Legal Formants. In: Gimigliano, G. (eds) Bitcoin and Mobile Payments . Palgrave Studies in Financial Services Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57512-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57512-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57511-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57512-8

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation