Below is a direct excerpt of Marty’s crooked problem # 1243: “Is Bitcoin the emergence of a new type of asset from a legal point of view?” Sign up for our newsletter here..
Preston Byrne advocates a firm argument that Bitcoin will eventually be labeled as a new type of asset, and its understanding may differ between the United States and the United Kingdom.
This is very interesting Blog post Preston Byrne extends the ideas announced since 2018. Bitcoin is a new type of asset, which will eventually be approved in court at some point in the future. If you’re looking for something to eat noodles in this bear market, Uncle Marty is a very exciting exercise trying to understand what Bitcoin looks like and should probably be seen in court. I think.
As mentioned above, Bitcoin is really unique as a kind of property because the ledgers are kept very distributed and do not fit, so they do not actually physically exist in one place. Properly defined the properties that have been established so far. In addition, the nature of UTXO’s control is determined by the private key. The private key can be signed by the person who created the UTXO, who accessed it by unauthorized means, or who guessed it using a very powerful computer. .. Combining these factors makes it fairly clear that we are dealing with a unique beast, as Preston points out.
I’m not sure how taxes and the like will change if a U.S. or UK court sets a case that designates Bitcoin as a new type. property, But I tend to agree that Bitcoin makes sense to set a new precedent. Mankind has never interacted with this type of asset. It is intuitively meaningless to treat it in the same way as the physical properties of real estate and precious metals. For the sake of clarity, I think this is positive for Bitcoin. We always believe that Bitcoin is just information, especially voice, due to the fact that UTXO does not actually exist in one place, but in a globally distributed ledger and can store the private key in our minds. It came to be.
If Bitcoin is designated as a speech that is exercised at one time anywhere rather than in a particular place, individual courts within the relatively honest legal system of a particular jurisdiction will attempt to claim Bitcoin as taxable within the border. I think it may reduce the ease of doing it. Defining this new type of property as something that someone owns but is not in a particular location greatly increases plausible denial and enforces local law on Bitcoin owners. Will be much more difficult.