[Picture’s perspective lines skewed to create akward feelings… AMS again]
All very nice to rule that if defendant claims to not have received a loan because the bank only transferred some bits from one account to another and no ‘real’ money switched accounts (the scandal! the fraud! the defendant claimed), and hence no ‘real’ money would need to be repaid, but the defendant did all sorts of transactions with third parties where she presented the fake money (quod non) as ‘real’ herself, then the defendant would have no trouble ‘repaying’ the loan without ‘real’ money wouldn’t she?
With the court siding with the claimant (bank), heh, but coating the whole judgement with all sorts of ‘yeah, banks are Naughty not nice’ “analysis” of the situation.
By doing so, the judge came close to, on the one hand, dismissing ‘real’ money as worthless scraps of paper (mostly, to amount to anything) with only vague promises of ‘repayment’ in something that would actually be money or so: Since dropping the gold standard for <nothing>, no-one has ever explained what that would be – no, not even gold as that would be just an alternative currency with skyrocketing / flatfalling exchange rates.
And, on the other hand, the court also came close to recognition of Bitcoin et al. as sufficiently real money to count as currency. Why would some (unelected! no, you elect politicians, the administration is de facto not controlled by them) government be trusted, whereas a transparent, transparently operating self-formed community of Bitcoin much less so?
But I seem to be repeating myself re this little postlet…
Now with the addition of a court’s ruling to the same effect. Thanks, it’s official now.