Quote from: Phil Dann Ward on March 14, 2014, 09:43:39 PM

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 14, 2014, 03:03:19 PM

There actually is a lot of precedent for that with bitcoins, the court recognized that bitcoins have value in the Shavers case as well as in the Silk Road cases. Moreover, they fit the test for having value, you can't get them for free or at will, right?

Sorry, I hadn't seen the case notes...I tend not to read the court rulings of jurisdictions other than the one I live in since they don't apply to me...bitcoins still don't count as money where I am. However, I should have done wider ranging research before spouting off on the subject in as general terms as I did - apologies.

At another tangent, it's interesting that you frame the bitcoin value question in terms of *getting* bitcoins; I contend that the question should be framed the other way round...what real, tangible goods and services can you get with bitcoins. The answer, of course, is that with at least a few retailers willing to accept bitcoins for the things that they sell, bitcoins do have demonstrable value in the 'real' world.

And to be slightly controversial, picking up on your proposition, it is arguably the case that you *can* get bitcoins for 'free' by mining them, I.e. you can get bitcoins without having to exchange anything (fiat currency, real world goods, etc) with any other individual or organisation. That is not to say that mining bitcoins is not without cost, I.e. computer hardware, electricity, etc. but it doesn't necessarily mean that their value to anyone else is even equal to the cost of producing them.

I think you've misunderstood me, I was not clear. I don't think bitcoins are necessarily money, my point is bitcoins have value that's cognizable under the law. When courts (at least in every US jurisdiction) analyze whether the crime of theft and the civil tort of conversion have occurred, they don't care whether something is money, they care whether it has value that is cognizable under the law. If someone takes your picture while you're naked in the privacy of your own home, they've certainly stolen from you, but the value of what they've stolen, that "information" about you, isn't really cognizable under theft or conversion statutes. Other laws may be relevant, but those ones wont. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has value that is cognizable, it's like stealing a software program, and that's cognizable under theft and conversion. The fact that the software isn't "money" is irrelevant, the fact that it may not have a stable value over time is irrelevant, it's something with cognizable value.

This is why I don't think declaring bitcoin as legal tender will have any substantive effect, legal tender laws don't matter nearly as much as everyone seems to think. For the most part in modern economies, legal tender only has relevance in one situation; when someone fails to fulfill an obligation. Owe taxes? Have a non-equity judgment against you? You can pay all of those in the legal tender of the relevant jurisdiction, and they have to accept. Beyond that, it's not really relevant.