Edit: He has pointed out issues that he will flesh out in the next version of the paper in the forum thread^.
[He plans to expand the paper's scope only in a superficial way as it pertains to international law: (from the forums) "Your point about internationality is very well taken. The paper is very U.S.-centric. I will try to do a better job in the next draft of pointing that out and mentioning the internationality of bitcoin. I may try to touch upon laws or regulations in other countries, but I don't have expertise in other countries' laws."]
> Furthermore, other legal issues that have not been analyzed in this paper are probably significant, including tax evasion, banking without a charter, state escheat statutes, and money laundering.
The Internet's first decentralized and anonymous currency will have an impact on so many different areas though not all areas necessarily need this research.
This study will be even more useful with less Flattr vs. YouTipIt comparison and more "store of value" versus "currency" comparison (and why each classification is important). Less comparison to WoW Gold and more comparison to e-gold (and why that comparison would be important as well).
Digital currencies are so fascinating. There are HUGE markets waiting on cost-effective micropayments. There are also cool futuristic ideas like programs that earn their own money and pay for their own hosting.
My feedback is that as a lawyer, the author should concentrate on the legal arguments (which are interesting), rather than branching off into economics.
Provided you never travel to, though or over the USA, volitionally or by ill luck, nor hold assets there, provided your government doesn't have a cravenly subservient extradition-at-whim treaty, and provided you aren't high profile enough for them to bend rules, then US laws probably don't apply to you.
I feel your frustration and, while it is true that any individual person is exquisitely vulnerable to legal and extra-legal coercion by state power, this still does not mean that the laws of one country apply to the citizens of another country.
That's little solace to the people that do things that are perfectly legal in their own country, only to be arrested because their plane had to make an emergency landing at a US airport.
| Most
importantly,
Bitcoin
currently
operates
in
a
legal
grey
area.
The
federal
government’s
supposed
monopoly
on
issuing
currency
is
somewhat
narrow
and
statutes
that
impose
that
monopoly
do
not
seem
to
apply
to
Bitcoin
due
to
its
digital
nature.
However,
a
bitcoin
may
be
a
“security”
within
the
meaning
of
the
federal
securities
laws,
subjecting
bitcoins
to
a
vast
regime
of
regulations,
including
general
antifraud
rules.
Furthermore,
other
legal
issues
that
have
not
been
analyzed
in
this
paper
are
probably
significant,
including
tax
evasion,
banking
without
a
charter,
state
escheat
statutes,
and
money
laundering.
Edit: He has pointed out issues that he will flesh out in the next version of the paper in the forum thread^.
[He plans to expand the paper's scope only in a superficial way as it pertains to international law: (from the forums) "Your point about internationality is very well taken. The paper is very U.S.-centric. I will try to do a better job in the next draft of pointing that out and mentioning the internationality of bitcoin. I may try to touch upon laws or regulations in other countries, but I don't have expertise in other countries' laws."]