3 ms·
I agree that it's money. I agree that Silk Road facilitated money laundering. The plain text of the law in question doesn't cover Bitcoin, though. That doesn't
by natrius 12y ago
I agree that it's money. I agree that Silk Road facilitated money laundering. The plain text of the law in question doesn't cover Bitcoin, though. That doesn't mean the ruling was wrong.
- jrockway 12y agoThe other thing to keep in mind, especially for programmer types, is that the law is not a computer program. There is certainly argument around wording in law, no doubt, but the courts do try to consider the intent when making a ruling. ("Well, this is currency, but not the currency of Another Country, so... case dismissed." That might happen, but it also might not, because it's pretty clear that the author of the law wasn't imagining cryptocurrency when drafting it.)
- enraged_camel 12y ago>>The plain text of the law in question doesn't cover Bitcoin, though. You mean the lawmakers did not predict the future and write the law to cover crypto-currencies? Mind-boggling. Totally.
- icebraining 12y agoThe EU had had a law (well, directive) covering electronic money for almost a decade when Bitcoin appeared.