Quote from: DdmrDdmr on November 25, 2020, 06:12:34 PM

Quote from: wtfmidn on November 21, 2020, 01:17:58 AM

<…>

We’ve got an ongoing (*) case study on the Spanish local board (see Me he comprado un piso con bitcoin). A person from that board recently bought a flat in Spain, and paid using Bitcoin a sum that is equivalent to just 100K€. All legally backed, notary to testify and so forth, but … the amount that was actually paid in BTC was written down in the deeds as cash, rather than BTC.

It therefore seems slightly on the hush-hush side when Bitcoin comes into the equation, and the notary hinted (without detailing) that payments stated in BTC are rather troublesome. The flat was cheapish, and cash can still be used between individuals for large sums (as opposed to when one side is a company), although above 100K would have triggered further burocracy.

This is a piece of uncommon news, I am glad to hear it. The buyer was fortunate to have someone that he could pay with Bitcoin. It will save a lot of bank charges and bureaucratic processes. Making such payments using a commercial bank will attract a lot of scrutiny and high bank charges. I like the idea of buying a house with Bitcoin because it will help to promote the privacy of both parties. Some bankers in my country act as agents to criminals. Immediately they observe that a certain customer has transferred such an amount, they can inform their gang which could lead to attacks.

I don't know the legal implication of buying a house with Bitcoin in my country. Banks are restricted from engaging in crypto transactions but bitcoin is still an acceptable means of payment. Stating that the property was bought with bitcoin will be ideal and the transaction details should be included in the payment receipt.