5年前淘宝上买了2.675个比特币,现在价值7万多！可尴尬的是...

1、答辩人系基于中国人民银行等部门机关联合发布的文件中关于禁止比特币交易的规定而关闭网站，对原告不构成侵权，且比特币属非法财产，在我国不受法律保护，交易行为涉嫌扰乱社会经济秩序，损害社会公共利益，故应驳回原告的起诉；

1. The respondent's closure of the website on the basis of the provisions of the documents issued jointly by the People's Bank of China and other sectoral bodies prohibiting Bitcoin transactions does not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's rights, and that Bitcoin is illegal property, is not protected by the law in our country and is suspected of disrupting the socio-economic order and undermining the public interest, so that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed;

2、答辩人未在淘宝网登记注册，未在淘宝网平台销售商品或提供服务，不是涉案购物合同的相对方，无证据证明答辩人、淘宝公司对原告存在侵权行为及共同侵权故意；

2; respondent is not registered on Snacknet and is not a counterpart to the shopping contract involved in selling goods or providing services; 3、答辩人于2014年5月2日发布停运公告，督促广大用户尽快完成提现，并且各大媒体均对此予以报道，至此答辩人已尽通知义务；

4、原告未提供比特币交易账户注册信息、账户余额、账户财产等信息，亦未提供任何证据证明其损失；

4; plaintiff failed to provide registration information on Bitcoin transaction accounts, account balances, account property, etc., and did not provide any evidence of its loss;

5、即使原告存在经济损失且与答辩人有关联，原告于2013年11月30日买入充值码，答辩人于2014年5月2日发布网站停运公告并于同年5月10日关闭比特币交易网站，原告知道或应当知道涉案侵权行为已超过3年诉讼时效，故原告的诉讼请求应予驳回。

5 The plaintiff bought the full value code on 30 November 2013, even if the plaintiff had financial losses and was associated with the respondent, the respondent issued a notice of suspension of the website on 2 May 2014 and closed the Bitcoin trading website on 10 May 2014. The plaintiff knew or should have known that the violation had been committed for more than three years and the plaintiff's application should have been dismissed.

1、淘宝公司仅是提供信息发布平台的服务提供商，不是涉诉商品的生产者、销售者，对涉案商品信息未参与制作、编辑或推荐，平台上所有商品信息均由用户自行发布，淘宝公司不能控制交易所涉物品的质量与安全合法性、信息的真实准确性及交易各方履行其交易协议项下义务的能力，用户发布信息或交易产生的法律后果完全由用户自行承担；

1. The company is merely a service provider of the information distribution platform, not a producer, seller of the goods involved, and does not participate in the production, editing or recommendation of the commodity information in question, all commodity information on the platform is published by the user itself, the company does not have control over the quality and security of the goods involved in the transaction, the true accuracy of the information and the ability of the parties to the transaction to fulfil their obligations under the transaction agreement, and the legal consequences of the user's release of the information or transaction are entirely on the user's own hands;

2、根据原告的申请，淘宝公司已及时向原告披露了卖家的真实姓名、地址和有效联系方式，尽到了相应的义务，不应承担赔偿责任；

2, at the plaintiff's request, the company had promptly disclosed to the plaintiff the true name, address and effective means of communication of the seller and was not liable for the corresponding obligations;

3、本案诉前原告未通过平台创设的维权通道申请退货退款，淘宝公司作为网络交易平台已尽平台义务，不应承担连带责任。综上，请求法院依法驳回原告全部诉请。

3; the plaintiff did not apply for a refund through the platform-created rights corridor prior to the case, and the scavenger company is not jointly and severally liable for its obligations as a platform for cyber-trading.