Return to Answer

This reason isn't really an ADR thing, but it's relevant nonetheless: A Bitcoin wallet is like the ultimate offshore bank. Yes, a court could order a defendant to hand over his or her Bitcoins to pay a judgement and potentially, in the right circumstances, hold him or her in contempt if they don't, but he or she still has the ultimate power to do so. And that's assuming the US (for example) can even reach him or her. Again – if they're offshore, forget about it and good luck! Maybe the Bitcoin wallet is controlled by a foreign trust and only the trustee has the ability to send the Bitcoins. In this situation, the defendant truly has AWESOME and STELLAR powers, and It'll be mission impossible to get the Bitcoins back. I really do mean AWESOME and STELLAR powers here. There's virtually no one who can hold them accountable. A judge can't intimidate a wallet at ALL like he or she may be able to a bank. Even money in an actual offshore bank in Hong Kong or Switzerland can't defend assets like a Bitcoin wallet can. Not that an offshore bank "defends" assets. An entity and/or a trust controlled by a trustee creates the separation between the defendant and his or her assets, but I'm sure you get what I mean. Also, Bitcoin wallets are pretty much anonymous and stealth. Yes, there's a block chain, but no creditor will be able to tell how many Bitcoins you're sitting on with going through a debtors exam. This is another AWESOME power you'd have as a defendant. The ability to make your assets stealth creates a chilling effect on potential lawsuits. Plaintiffs want to sue people who have money. If they're unable to see how much you're worth without actually getting the judgement, they may never pursue you in the first place. BTW, the defendant could easily be you. You could harness the awesome powers of structure and Bitcoins yourself!

This reason isn't really an ADR thing, but it's relevant nonetheless: A Bitcoin wallet is like the ultimate offshore bank. Yes, a court could order a defendant to hand over his or her Bitcoins to pay a judgement and potentially, in the right circumstances, hold him or her in contempt if they don't, but he or she still has the ultimate power to do so. And that's assuming the US (for example) can even reach him or her. Again – if they're offshore, forget about it and good luck! Maybe the Bitcoin wallet is controlled by a foreign trust and only the trustee has the ability to send the Bitcoins. In this situation, the defendant truly has AWESOME and STELLAR powers, and It'll be mission impossible to get the Bitcoins back. I really do mean AWESOME and STELLAR powers here. There's virtually no one who can hold them accountable. A judge can't intimidate a wallet at ALL like he or she may be able to a bank. Even money in an actual offshore bank in Hong Kong or Switzerland can't defend assets like a Bitcoin wallet can. Not that an offshore bank "defends" assets. An entity and/or a trust controlled by a trustee creates the separation between the defendant and his or her assets, but I'm sure you get what I mean. Also, Bitcoin wallets are pretty much anonymous and stealth. Yes, there's a block chain, but no creditor will be able to tell how many Bitcoins you're sitting on with going through a debtors exam. This is another AWESOME power you'd have as a defendant. The ability to make your assets stealth creates a chilling effect on potential lawsuits. Plaintiffs want to sue people who have money. If they're unable to see how much you're worth without actually getting the judgement, they may never pursue you in the first place. BTW, the defendant could easily be you. You could harness the awesome powers of structure and Bitcoins yourself (I do)!

This reason isn't really an ADR thing, but it's relevant nonetheless: A Bitcoin wallet is like the ultimate offshore bank. Yes, a court could order a defendant to hand over his or her Bitcoins to pay a judgement and potentially, in the right circumstances, hold him or her in contempt if they don't, but he or she still has the ultimate power to do so. And that's assuming the US (for example) can even reach him or her. Again – if they're offshore, forget about it and good luck! Maybe the Bitcoin wallet is controlled by a foreign trust and only the trustee has the ability to send the Bitcoins. In this situation, the defendant truly has AWESOME and STELLAR powers, and It'll be mission impossible to get the Bitcoins back. I really do mean AWESOME and STELLAR powers here. There's virtually no one who can hold them accountable. A judge can't intimidate a wallet at ALL like he or she may be able to a bank. Even money in an actual offshore bank in Hong Kong or Switzerland can't defend assets like a Bitcoin wallet can. Not that an offshore bank "defends" assets. An entity and/or a trust controlled by a trustee creates the separation between the defendant and his or her assets, but I'm sure you get what I mean. If a foreign defendant tells you to go "pound sand" in the face of a court judgement or ADR decision, you're pretty much screwed.

This reason isn't really an ADR thing, but it's relevant nonetheless: A Bitcoin wallet is like the ultimate offshore bank. Yes, a court could order a defendant to hand over his or her Bitcoins to pay a judgement and potentially, in the right circumstances, hold him or her in contempt if they don't, but he or she still has the ultimate power to do so. And that's assuming the US (for example) can even reach him or her. Again – if they're offshore, forget about it and good luck! Maybe the Bitcoin wallet is controlled by a foreign trust and only the trustee has the ability to send the Bitcoins. In this situation, the defendant truly has AWESOME and STELLAR powers, and It'll be mission impossible to get the Bitcoins back. I really do mean AWESOME and STELLAR powers here. There's virtually no one who can hold them accountable. A judge can't intimidate a wallet at ALL like he or she may be able to a bank. Even money in an actual offshore bank in Hong Kong or Switzerland can't defend assets like a Bitcoin wallet can. Not that an offshore bank "defends" assets. An entity and/or a trust controlled by a trustee creates the separation between the defendant and his or her assets, but I'm sure you get what I mean. Also, Bitcoin wallets are pretty much anonymous and stealth. Yes, there's a block chain, but no creditor will be able to tell how many Bitcoins you're sitting on with going through a debtors exam. This is another AWESOME power you'd have as a defendant. The ability to make your assets stealth creates a chilling effect on potential lawsuits. Plaintiffs want to sue people who have money. If they're unable to see how much you're worth without actually getting the judgement, they may never pursue you in the first place. BTW, the defendant could easily be you. You could harness the awesome powers of structure and Bitcoins yourself!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about arbitration and mediation (collectively known as "alternative dispute resolution" or "ADR"). I'm not an arbiter, mediator, or attorney, but I am someone who uses contracts with arbitration clauses in them, has been advised about arbitration by attorneys, and has actually had a dispute resolved via arbitration. I became interested in this topic after overhearing someone talk about Bitcoin transactions being arbitrated or mediated. Here are my detailed thoughts:

Firstly, the parties would have to sign an ADR agreement between them as apart of the transaction. In order to use ADR, the parties need to agree to it, which requires a written agreement. Remember, if there's a dispute, the parties are not going to be friendly towards one another. In fact, they'll be hostile towards one another. Hostile parties will dispute and disagree with what the other party says, and one party may even dispute that they agreed to ADR in the first place. So, an agreement proving the parties consented to ADR will be critical to using ADR. Again – Bitcoin is cash. You'd have to have a formal agreement between you and the other party, which agrees to ADR and lays out the details of the transaction/purchase. Not too many people whip out their arbitration agreements before conducting a cash transaction. This might be a little awkward, but if you're series about using ADR, you'll have to do it.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about arbitration and mediation (collectively known as "alternative dispute resolution" or "ADR"). I'm not an arbiter, mediator, or attorney, but I am someone who uses contracts with arbitration clauses in them, has been advised about arbitration by attorneys, and has actually had a dispute resolved via arbitration. I became interested in this topic after overhearing someone talk about Bitcoin transactions being arbitrated or mediated. I'll also touch on asset protection involving Bitcoin in the 2nd to last paragraph (more interesting IMHO). Here are my detailed thoughts:

Firstly, the parties would have to sign an ADR agreement between them as apart of the transaction. In order to use ADR, the parties need to agree to it, which requires a written agreement. Remember, if there's a dispute, the parties are not going to be friendly towards one another. In fact, they'll be hostile towards one another. Hostile parties will dispute and disagree with what the other party says, and one party may even dispute that they agreed to ADR in the first place. So, an agreement proving the parties consented to ADR will be critical to using ADR. Again – Bitcoin is cash. You'd have to have a formal agreement between you and the other party, which agrees to ADR and lays out the details of the transaction/purchase. Not too many people whip out their arbitration agreements before conducting a cash transaction. This might be a little awkward, but if you're serious about using ADR, you'll have to do it.