中英雙語(yǔ)對(duì)照外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品 另類的貨幣比特幣、私人數(shù)字貨幣以及反監(jiān)管案例研究

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Nerdy Money: Bitcoin, the Private Digital Currency, and the Case Against its Regulation</p><p>　　外文作者：Nikolei M. Kaplanov</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處:《Social Science Electronic Publishing》 , 2

2、012</p><p>　　英文3698單詞， 19887字符，中文5789漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Nerdy Money: Bitcoin, the Private

3、 Digital Currency, and the Case Against its Regulation</p><p>　　Nikolei M. Kaplanov</p><p>　　In 1601, Elizabeth I and her government devalued the Irish coin from nine ounces fine to three ounces

4、 fine of silver in order to finance the high cost of the Nine Years War in Ireland. This unilateral move by the English government, combined with the failure to remove the old sterling from circulation, caused catastroph

5、ic problems throughout Ireland. In addition to rapid inflation in common foodstuffs, Irish citizens would only accept the new coin at its reduced intrinsic value rather than its f</p><p>　　While the Irish ex

6、perience during the Nine Years War is just one example of a government’s complete control over money in the marketplace, this practice has continued throughout much of history and persists even today.5 Even the United St

7、ates experimented with privately issued currency for a number of years,6 but it ultimately legislated these private notes out of existence in favor of the “greenbacks,”7 which would later be controlled by the Federal Res

8、erve System.8 While some have argued that </p><p>　　One of the reasons that government has maintained such a monopoly over currency is because there has never been an alternative that can offer the security

9、of traditional money with the convenience of financial institutions that permit worldwide commerce.11 This changed with the creation of bitcoin. Bitcoin is the world’s first digital, private cryptocurrency exchanged ove

10、r the Internet through the use of a peer-to-peer network.12 Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, and there is no government, compa</p><p>　　This Comment explores the lawfulness of using bitcoin, a privately-issue

11、d currency transacted on a peer-to-peer network, and the ability of the federal government to bar transactions between two willing parties. While there are no cases challenging the ability of parties in the United States

12、 to make transactions using bitcoins, there are policymakers who have denounced the use of bitcoin.15 This has led some to question whether the federal government has the ability under current federal law to </p>

13、<p>　　Bitcoin Exchanges</p><p>　　In addition to using mining software to obtain bitcoins, people may also obtain bitcoins from online exchanges. Bitcoin is currently traded on exchanges where the price

14、of bitcoin floats against other currencies valued by demand. Similar to traditional exchanges that allow individuals and businesses to exchange one currency for another, there are online exchanges where people can exchan

15、ge popular national and transnational currencies (e.g., Great British Pound or the Euro) for bitcoins. The larg</p><p>　　Although nearly all bitcoin exchanges allow for the purchase of bitcoins, the differen

16、t exchanges operate in different ways and offer different services. For example, to purchase bitcoins on Mt.Gox, a user needs to add state-backed currency to her account.73 Then the user can direct Mt.Gox to execute an e

17、xchange of deposited funds for bitcoins.74 Other sites offer over- the-counter services matching registered sellers with buyers.75 One exchange, Camp BX, allows users to make over-the-counter t</p><p>　　In

18、addition to using online exchanges to obtain bitcoins, they can also be purchased directly. This is done by finding someone who is willing to exchange bitcoins for cash.78 Websites, such as Bitcoin.local, provide contact

19、 information for buyers and sellers of bitcoins, thereby allowing individuals to connect and exchange bitcoins face-to-face. Typically, the parties meet in person, the bitcoin owner transfers her bitcoins to the purchase

20、r via the Internet, and the purchaser pays the agreed-upo</p><p>　　DISCUSSION</p><p>　　Under U.S. law and regulations, Congress and the Executive Branch have the ability to prohibit or limit the

21、 use of bitcoins in the market. Close inspection of the existing laws and regulations, however, show that the traditional institutions and mediums of exchange do not contemplate a technology like bitcoin. This Comment wi

22、ll show that bitcoins fall within a gray area under U.S. law in which they are not necessarily outlawed but still give rise to contractual obligations. Therefore, they shoul</p><p>　　This treatment—permittin

23、g its unfettered use in the marketplace—does little to assuage those who are concerned with the nefarious activity that is often associated with bitcoins. Since any prohibitions on bitcoins will likely be ineffective, th

24、is Comment argues against creating an outright prohibition on the use of bitcoins. Instead, federal and state officials should develop a familiarity with the technology underlying bitcoin and the nature of their transact

25、ions, which provide enough informati</p><p>　　Laws Governing Bitcoin Use: Inapplicable Provisions</p><p>　　In response to Senator Schumer’s concern that bitcoins are “an online form of money lau

26、ndering used to disguise the source of money,” this Comment set out to explore potential options under U.S. and state law currently in force that might prohibit or limit the use of bitcoins. While regulations pertaining

27、to banking, money transmission, or securities potentially have application with bitcoins, further analysis shows that bitcoins and their users fall outside of such federal and state law due to </p><p>　　Regu

28、lation </p><p>　　Since the bitcoin software electronically transfers bitcoins from user to user over the internet, another potential opportunity to regulate it under existing law is through the Electronic Fu

29、nds Transfer Act294 (EFTA) and the Federal Reserve’s rule under Regulation E.295 The intent of the EFTA and Regulation E, however, was to protect consumers’ rights against financial institutions in electronic transaction

30、s.296 Therefore, in order to fall within the regulatory framework of Regulation E, bitcoin</p><p>　　Bitcoin software would not qualify as a financial institution under Regulation E since it is not a legally

31、 recognizable entity.299 While the software does provide “an access device . . . to provide electronic fund transfer services,” neither it nor the bitcoin user “directly or indirectly hold an account belonging to a con

32、sumer.”301 Instead, bitcoins are actually stored either on the user’s personal computer or in an online wallet.302 Storing bitcoins on a personal computer is functionally </p><p>　　The second component nec

33、essary under Regulation E is to actually conduct an electronic funds transfer. The bitcoin software is executing electronic transfers in a pure sense, but since the software does not “order, instruct, or authorize a fina

34、ncial institution” to do anything, its activity does fall within the regulatory definition of an electronic funds transfer.306 The same can be said for the digital wallet companies. They are not actually initiating any s

35、ort of transfer activity but instead</p><p>　　Laws Governing Bitcoin Use: Applicable Provisions</p><p>　　As Part III.A notes, there are many provisions that could potentially apply to the averag

36、e user or miner of bitcoins. These provisions, however, employ tenuous arguments to prohibit or regulate bitcoin use under current law in manners that were not foreseen by the legislature.334 Absent any legal provisions

37、that would inhibit the use of bitcoins in the marketplace, this Part contemplates the provisions and examples that facilitate its use and provide bitcoin users authority under law. Finally, </p><p>　　State

38、Contract Law’s Applicability to Bitcoins</p><p>　　The treatment of a contract using bitcoins under state law obviously depends on the treatment of bitcoins by the courts. Nonetheless, either by treating bitc

39、oins as currency or as property, contracts executed using bitcoins should be upheld. If a contract executed using bitcoins was challenged under state law and the court chose to treat bitcoins like a foreign currency, th

40、e UCC provides that the medium of payment (dollars or bitcoins) is determined by the contract itself.335 In contracts where</p><p>　　Policy Considerations Counsel Against Regulation</p><p>　　Cur

41、rent law really does not envision a type of technology like bitcoin, which leaves it in a legal gray area. Because people like Senator Schumer view bitcoins as being used for illegal activity and circumventing the tradit

42、ional financial channels,359 there is likely some interest in trying to limit or ban bitcoins. Policymakers, however, should resist the impulse to ban bitcoins, if not for any other reason than the fact that a prohibitio

43、n on bitcoins would be nearly impossible to accomplish. F</p><p>　　Outlawing Bitcoins</p><p>　　Since bitcoin is not run by a single company or entity, it is not possible to shut down the technol

44、ogy either by injunction or other action. The problem is that “Bitcoin is an open-source project” and given the nature of the technology “there is no Bitcoin company to raid, subpoena, or shut down.”362 Further, even if

45、the bitcoin website and the source code information and underlying services were removed, bitcoin itself would be unaffected.363 This is because the database that supports bitcoins </p><p>　　If there is no w

46、ay to eliminate bitcoin, then one way of stopping the use and transfer of bitcoins might to outlaw the activity itself. If Congress chose, it could single out bitcoin by making interstate transactions using bitcoin inval

47、id.365 Congress could even outlaw the use and distribution of any peer-to-peer electronic currency. Any option between these two extremes would send the clear message that bitcoins are illegal to use. The more extreme op

48、tion—outlawing bitcoin use and distribution—</p><p>　　Similar to outlawing the use of bitcoins, federal authorities could try to find under existing law that bitcoin users are contributing to a criminal netw

49、ork. As one scholar pointed out, “an argument can be made that 1) the predominant use of the Bitcoin network is the trafficking of illicit goods and services, and 2) running the software should therefore carry vic

50、arious or contributory liability for those offenses.” This would be analogous to the arguments used against file-sharing site</p><p>　　Coercing people to provide the identities of other bitcoins users is p

51、robably unlikely and very time consuming. “More likely, a bitcoin user will be revealed through identifying information inadvertently revealed in the course of a transaction.”380 Since there is only a limited market for

52、which to purchase goods using bitcoins, most people—especially those that are involved in a crime syndicate—are going to need to change their bitcoins into a government issued currency. This choke point along w</p>

53、<p>　　Benefits of a Free, Open Currency Market Counsel Against Regulation</p><p>　　The final reason to resist prohibiting or even inhibiting bitcoin lies in the fundamental concept of the Internet its

54、elf. Allowing bitcoin to operate unfettered by substantial regulation allows it to contribute towards job creation, economic growth, and opportunity.382 By letting the market determine whether or not bitcoin should surv

55、ive is preferable to federal policy seeking to shut it down. For instance, even though bitcoins have only been in existence for about three years, there are alrea</p><p>　　In addition to the proven results

56、of bitcoins, the rationale that supported their creation is also still in effect. Bitcoins have drastically reduced the cost of online transactions in a secure, anonymous, and efficient manner.385 Bitcoin has also establ

57、ished that, despite its volatility, there are people who want to participate in a system outside of any government control or influence. Even if bitcoin ultimately fails, there is likely to be more cybercurrencies to ei

58、ther replace it or compete</p><p>　　Therefore, the U.S. government should resist any impulse to regulate bitcoin or any other cybercurrencies.</p><p>　　CONCLUSION</p><p>　　Complaint

59、s against government control of currency have been present in the United States and in other countries throughout history. While alternative currencies have offered some respite for those who want a choice in their mediu

60、m of exchange, these have still been controlled by some central authority and have generally been limited to a specific region or area.387 Bitcoin, on the other hand, is the unique confluence of technology and demand all

61、owing it to become a viable, global alternative cur</p><p>　　This Comment maintains that the traditional bitcoin users buying and selling goods in a cash-like transaction, as well as bitcoin miners, fall out

62、side of the regulatory provisions under federal banking, money transmission, and securities laws. Instead, bitcoin transactions should be treated as a community currency under the law, receiving full contractual enforce

63、ment and being treated as a traditional currency in every other way. Despite genuine concerns relating to bitcoins and criminal activi</p><p><b>　　Reference</b></p><p>　　1.HANS S. PA

64、WLISCH, SIR JOHN DAVIES AND THE CONQUEST OF IRELAND: A STUDY IN LEGAL IMPERIALISM 142–43 (1985). The Nine Years War is also referred to as Tyrone’s Rebellion. See HIRAM MORGAN, TYRONE’S REBELLION: THE OUTBREAK OF THE NIN

65、E YEARS WAR IN TUDOR IRELAND 11 (1993).</p><p>　　2.See F.A. HAYEK, DENATIONALISATION OF MONEY – THE ARGUMENT REFINED: AN ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF CONCURRENT CURRENCIES 33–34 (3d ed. 1990) (disc

66、ussing the propensity of governments to create inflation in the economy since the Archaic period in Greece until today); see also Christopher S. Rugaber, China Currency Manipulation: Treasury Declines To Name China In Re

67、port, THE HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 27, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/china-currency- manipulation_n_1171607</p><p>　　3. While state chartered banks in existence during the operations of the

68、First and Second Banks of the United States did issue private paper, the notes issued by the Banks of the United States were the predominant currency during the early years of the United States. LISSA L. BROOME & J

69、ERRY W. MARKHAM, REGULATION OF BANK FINANCIAL SERVICE ACTIVITIES: CASES AND MATERIALS 9–11 (4th ed. 2011). Following the revocation of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, the number o</p>

70、<p>　　4. In 1864, Congress passed the National Bank Act, which established much of the modern national banking regulations. BROOME & MARKHAM, supra note 6, at 23. The National Bank Act also levied a two perce

71、nt tax on state-bank-issued notes. Id. at 25. Since the tax failed to affect state-bank issuance, Congress raised the tax to ten percent, which led to the end of state- issued bank notes. Id.; see also Veazie Bank v. Fen

72、no, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533, 539–42 (1869) (discussing the steps Congress took</p><p>　　5. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: PURPOSE & FUNCTIONS 1 (9th ed. 2005

73、); see also BROOME & MARKHAM, supra note 6, at 33.</p><p>　　6.See HAYEK, supra note 5, at 130 (“If we want free enterprise and a market economy to survive . . .we have no choice but to replace the govern

74、mental currency monopoly and national currency systems by free competition . . . .”).</p><p>　　7.See infra Part II.D.2 for a discussion on alternative currencies.</p><p>　　8.See HAYEK, supra not

75、e 5, at 28–33 (discussing the evolution of governments’ role in overseeing money).</p><p>　　9. See infra Part II.A for a discussion of bitcoin’s technical functionality and use as an alternative currency.<

76、;/p><p>　　10.Id. In addition to counterfeiting, any other practice that generally involves the defrauding of consumers as an unfair business practice would also be illegal under federal and state laws. See Neil

77、 A. Helfman, Proof of Statutory Unfair Business Practices, 36 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 3d 221 (1996) (updated June 2011) (discussing updated security practices).</p><p>　　11. Masnick, supra note 117 (quotin

78、g Senator Schumer); see also Lyons, supra note 69, at 32 (explaining Senator Schumer’s concerns with bitcoin and the Silk Road site).</p><p>　　360 See, infra Part II.C.1 for a discussion on the effectiveness

79、 of a law trying to ban the use of bitcoins.</p><p>　　12.Trying to shut down bitcoin would likely be very similar to the efforts done to stop online file-sharing programs. For instance when Napster was shut

80、 down by a court order in 2001, many new file sharing programs like Limewire and KaZaA emerged that were more difficult to control and a greater threat to security. M. Eric Johnsont, et al., The Evolution of the Peer-to-

81、Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users, 41 HAWAII INT’L CONF. ON SYS. SCI. at 2 (2008).</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　另類的貨幣：比特幣、私人數(shù)字貨幣以及反監(jiān)管案例研究</p><

82、p>　　Nikolei M. Kaplanov</p><p>　　在1601年，為了支付愛爾蘭九年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的高昂成本，伊麗莎白一世和她的政府決定將愛爾蘭貨幣進(jìn)行貶值處理，也就是從九盎司貶至三盎司銀幣。英國(guó)政府的這一單方面行動(dòng)，再加上未能從貨幣流通中取消舊英鎊，這在整個(gè)愛爾蘭造成了災(zāi)難性的問題。除了普通食品的快速通貨膨脹之外，愛爾蘭公民只會(huì)接受新貨幣的內(nèi)在價(jià)值而不是其面值。此外，商人在商業(yè)交易中拒絕接受貶值的貨

83、幣，導(dǎo)致來自英格蘭的重要商品短缺。</p><p>　　盡管在九年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間愛爾蘭的這一經(jīng)歷僅僅是政府對(duì)市場(chǎng)上貨幣完全控制的一個(gè)案例，但這種做法在許多歷史演變中一直持續(xù)下去，直到今天仍然存在。即便是美國(guó)也試用了私人發(fā)行的貨幣，但它最終將這些私人貨幣都轉(zhuǎn)化為有利于“美元”的貨幣，后者將由美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)控制。雖然有人認(rèn)為政府不應(yīng)該控制貨幣供應(yīng)量，但是除了一些當(dāng)?shù)氐奶娲泿胖?，人們沒有其他選擇。</p><

84、p>　　政府一直對(duì)貨幣保持壟斷的原因之一是因?yàn)閺膩頉]有一種替代方案可以為傳統(tǒng)貨幣提供安全保障，而金融機(jī)構(gòu)的便利性可以允許全球范圍的商業(yè)交易。但是這一點(diǎn)隨著比特幣的誕生而得到改變。 比特幣是世界上第一個(gè)通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)使用的點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)交換的數(shù)字私人加密貨幣。比特幣沒有內(nèi)在價(jià)值，沒有政府、公司或獨(dú)立組織維護(hù)其價(jià)值或監(jiān)控其使用價(jià)值 。相反，比特幣依靠點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)來通過需求獲取價(jià)值，并通過用戶在個(gè)人計(jì)算機(jī)上運(yùn)行的程序來維護(hù)其安全。</p&g

85、t;<p>　　本文探討了使用比特幣的合法性，比特幣是在對(duì)等網(wǎng)絡(luò)上交易的私人發(fā)行的貨幣，以及聯(lián)邦政府在禁止兩個(gè)自愿方之間進(jìn)行交易的處事能力。 雖然沒有任何案例去質(zhì)疑美國(guó)各方使用比特幣進(jìn)行交易的能力，但也有決策者譴責(zé)使用比特幣。這導(dǎo)致一些人質(zhì)疑聯(lián)邦政府是否有能力根據(jù)現(xiàn)行聯(lián)邦法律去禁止在自愿參與方中使用比特幣。本文將描述在沒有法律依據(jù)的情況下，聯(lián)邦政府去禁止比特幣用戶從事傳統(tǒng)的消費(fèi)購(gòu)買和轉(zhuǎn)讓活動(dòng)。本文還進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，聯(lián)邦政府應(yīng)該

86、避免通過任何限制使用比特幣的法律或規(guī)定。如果有任何索賠出現(xiàn)，本文認(rèn)為有一個(gè)完全可以接受的比特幣使用模型：即社區(qū)貨幣。</p><p><b>　　比特幣交易</b></p><p>　　除了使用挖掘軟件來獲取比特幣之外，人們還可以從在線交易所獲得比特幣。比特幣目前在交易所進(jìn)行交易，其中比特幣的價(jià)格浮動(dòng)于按需求估價(jià)的其他貨幣。與允許個(gè)人和企業(yè)用另一種貨幣交換一種貨幣的傳

87、統(tǒng)交易所相類似，在線交易所可以讓人們通用的國(guó)家和跨國(guó)貨幣（例如，大英鎊或歐元）來兌換比特幣。最大的交易所是Mt.Gox，但也有其他的交易所。</p><p>　　盡管幾乎所有的比特幣交易所都允許購(gòu)買比特幣，但不同的交易所以不同的方式運(yùn)作并提供不同的服務(wù)。例如，要購(gòu)買Mt.Gox上的比特幣，用戶需要將國(guó)家支持的貨幣添加到她的賬戶中。然后，用戶可以指示Mt.Gox執(zhí)行比特幣的存入資金交換。其他網(wǎng)站提供跨柜臺(tái)服務(wù)，這需

88、要注冊(cè)賣家與買家進(jìn)行匹配。一個(gè)交易所BX，允許用戶在線與其他用戶進(jìn)行場(chǎng)外交易，并提供保證金交易和賣空功能。在每個(gè)交易所中，用戶必須簽訂一項(xiàng)服務(wù)協(xié)議，明確各方試圖限制交換責(zé)任的權(quán)利。</p><p>　　除了使用在線交易獲取比特幣外，他們也可以直接購(gòu)買。這是通過找到愿意以比特幣兌換現(xiàn)金的人來完成的。諸如Bitcoin.local之類的網(wǎng)站為比特幣的買家和賣家提供聯(lián)系信息，從而允許個(gè)人面對(duì)面地連接和交換比特幣。通常，

89、當(dāng)事人親自見面，比特幣所有者通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)將其比特幣轉(zhuǎn)移給購(gòu)買者，購(gòu)買者支付商定的現(xiàn)金金額。</p><p><b>　　探討</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)美國(guó)法律和法規(guī)，國(guó)會(huì)和行政部門有能力禁止或限制在市場(chǎng)上使用的比特幣。然而，仔細(xì)觀察現(xiàn)有的法律和法規(guī)，表面?zhèn)鹘y(tǒng)的機(jī)構(gòu)和交易媒介并不考慮像比特幣這樣的幣種。根據(jù)美國(guó)法律，表明比特幣屬于灰色地帶，其中不一定非法，但仍會(huì)產(chǎn)

90、生合同義務(wù)。因此，根據(jù)合同法，它們應(yīng)被視為本地或社區(qū)貨幣，作為根據(jù)合同法獲得充分授權(quán)的一種支付媒介，要求對(duì)收入征稅而不牽涉安全法規(guī)。</p><p>　　這種不受監(jiān)管的狀態(tài)允許其在市場(chǎng)上不受限制地使用比特幣，這對(duì)于那些擔(dān)心通過比特幣進(jìn)行相關(guān)違法活動(dòng)的人來說并不是一件好事。由于對(duì)比特幣的任何禁止都可能無效，因此本評(píng)論認(rèn)為不會(huì)直接禁止使用比特幣。相反，聯(lián)邦政府和州政府官員應(yīng)該要了解比特幣技術(shù)以及他們交易的性質(zhì)，這些技

91、術(shù)提供了足夠的信息來合理調(diào)查和對(duì)付任何非法活動(dòng)。</p><p>　　比特幣的法律監(jiān)管問題：不適用條款</p><p>　　對(duì)于參議員舒默關(guān)于比特幣是“一種用來掩蓋貨幣來源的洗錢網(wǎng)上形式”的擔(dān)心，本評(píng)論著手探討目前有效的美國(guó)和州法律中可能禁止或限制使用比特幣的條款。盡管有關(guān)銀行業(yè)務(wù)、貨幣交易或證券的法規(guī)可能有比特幣申請(qǐng)，但進(jìn)一步分析表明，比特幣及其用戶由于其獨(dú)特性質(zhì)而不屬于聯(lián)邦和州法律。因

92、此，該技術(shù)的結(jié)構(gòu)特點(diǎn)防止了在法律下使用它們的任何實(shí)際限制。</p><p><b>　　電子監(jiān)管</b></p><p>　　由于比特幣軟件是通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)以電子方式將比特幣從某一用戶轉(zhuǎn)移到另一用戶，因此根據(jù)現(xiàn)行法律對(duì)其進(jìn)行監(jiān)管的另一個(gè)潛在的方法是通過電子資金轉(zhuǎn)賬法案（EFTA）和美國(guó)聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備委員會(huì)的電子監(jiān)管規(guī)定。然而，歐洲自由貿(mào)易聯(lián)盟的意圖和電子監(jiān)管條例是為了保護(hù)消費(fèi)者

93、在電子交易中抵御金融機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)利。因此，為了符合電子監(jiān)管條例的框架，比特幣必須是通過金融機(jī)構(gòu)并進(jìn)行電子資金轉(zhuǎn)賬。</p><p>　　比特幣軟件不符合金融機(jī)構(gòu)電子監(jiān)管條例規(guī)定，因?yàn)樗皇欠缮峡勺R(shí)別的實(shí)體貨幣。雖然軟件確實(shí)提供了“訪問設(shè)備”，也提供電子資金轉(zhuǎn)賬服務(wù)，但它“既不是比特幣用戶”也不直接或間接持有屬于消費(fèi)者的賬戶。實(shí)際上，比特幣實(shí)際上存儲(chǔ)在用戶的個(gè)人電腦或在線錢包中。個(gè)人計(jì)算機(jī)在功能上等同于將現(xiàn)金存入錢包

94、或個(gè)人保險(xiǎn)箱中。然而，在網(wǎng)上錢包中存儲(chǔ)比特幣可能構(gòu)成一個(gè)人 ，在這種情況下，網(wǎng)站的所有者也就間接屬于消費(fèi)者。因此，根據(jù)電子監(jiān)管條例，比特幣軟件不符合金融機(jī)構(gòu)的條件，而數(shù)字錢包公司可能是。</p><p>　　電子監(jiān)管條例所需的第二個(gè)組成部分是實(shí)際進(jìn)行電子資金轉(zhuǎn)賬。比特幣軟件就是純粹意義的執(zhí)行電子轉(zhuǎn)賬平臺(tái)，但由于該軟件并未“命令，指示或授權(quán)金融機(jī)構(gòu)”做任何事情，其活動(dòng)確實(shí)符合電子資金轉(zhuǎn)賬的監(jiān)管定義。同樣的可以說是數(shù)

95、字錢包公司。他們實(shí)際上并沒有啟動(dòng)任何類型的轉(zhuǎn)賬活動(dòng)，而是由轉(zhuǎn)賬由賬戶所有者發(fā)起。即使有人認(rèn)為數(shù)字錢包公司是金融機(jī)構(gòu)并且比特幣網(wǎng)站正在執(zhí)行電子轉(zhuǎn)賬，但兩家實(shí)體都無法滿足規(guī)則下的兩項(xiàng)要求。</p><p>　　管理比特幣使用的法律：適用條款</p><p>　　如前部分所述，有很多規(guī)定可能適用于普通用戶或礦工比特幣。然而，這些規(guī)定在立法機(jī)構(gòu)沒有預(yù)見到的情況下，采用現(xiàn)行法律禁止或限制比特幣使用的

96、條款。如果沒有任何法律條款會(huì)阻止在市場(chǎng)上使用比特幣，本部分考慮了這些條款，這有助于其使用并根據(jù)法律提供的比特幣用戶權(quán)限。最后，鑒于其結(jié)構(gòu)和功能的相似性，本文認(rèn)為，根據(jù)法律，比特幣應(yīng)被視為本地或社區(qū)貨幣。</p><p>　　國(guó)家合同法對(duì)比特幣的適用性</p><p>　　根據(jù)州合同法來處理比特幣的權(quán)利顯然取決于法院。盡管如此，無論是通過將比特幣作為貨幣還是作為財(cái)產(chǎn)，都應(yīng)該維持并使用比特幣執(zhí)

97、行的合同。如果使用比特幣執(zhí)行的合同受到州法律的質(zhì)疑并且法院選擇將比特幣當(dāng)作外幣處理，則UCC規(guī)定支付媒介（美元或比特幣）則由合同本身決定。在合同中就支付方式?jīng)]有指定，但付款以比特幣為單位，購(gòu)買者可以選擇以比特幣或等值美元付款，前提是他們?cè)诿绹?guó)。同樣，如果合同特別規(guī)定支付是以比特幣支付，那么購(gòu)買必須提供約定數(shù)量的比特幣才能履行合同。</p><p>　　政策層面對(duì)反對(duì)監(jiān)管問題的考慮</p><p

98、>　　現(xiàn)行法律實(shí)際上并沒有設(shè)想像比特幣這樣的技術(shù)貨幣，將其留在合法的灰色地帶。因?yàn)橄袷婺瑓⒆h員這樣的人認(rèn)為比特幣被用于非法活動(dòng)并規(guī)避傳統(tǒng)的金融渠道，他們很可能會(huì)試圖限制或禁止比特幣。然而，政策制定者應(yīng)該抵制禁止使用比特幣的沖動(dòng)，因?yàn)榻故褂帽忍貛?，?huì)造成其他的問題。此外，禁止比特幣并不會(huì)阻止比特幣用戶進(jìn)行的基本犯罪活動(dòng)。相反，比特幣提供了檢察官調(diào)查犯罪活動(dòng)所需的大部分信息。盡管比特幣的使用可能會(huì)通過對(duì)用戶的過度打擊而被阻止，但另一