Stephen D Palley is a counsel in private use in Washington, DC, focusing on construction, word and program development, including blockchain and intelligent agreement design.
In this opinion piece, Palley argues that a new justice box in that bitcoin was deemed not be “money” has controversial precedential value notwithstanding claims to a contrary.
A Miami, Florida, hearing justice recently discharged a rapist box opposite a suspect who had sole bitcoin to a military investigator as partial of an clandestine investigation.
The case, Florida v Espinosa, has been already been cited by some potentially critical fashion for destiny cases, quite those where bitcoin’s standing as “money” or “currency” is during issue. Bitcoin attention advocates will also bring a box when arguing for legislative remodel and larger regulatory clarity.
But, as authorised precedent, Espinosa‘s value might be limited. It’s a singular preference from a Florida state justice hearing decider per state specific statutes.
It’s not an appeals justice decision. It’s not contracting “precedent” in any other state or in Federal Court. Half of a opinion has to do with proof rapist intent, though small to do with bitcoin.
Finally, a Court’s research of either bitcoin constitutes “money” or “currency”