Bitcoin Forum

Sure, it can be used as money (proven fact), similar to the way gold coins can and have been used as money in the past.

But it is not terribly practical to do so.

Especially, if having to fight with the common, government issued money (legal tender), I think Bitcoin will loose this battle.

What I believe Bitcoin community should do is to re-define Bitcoin, more precisely align it with the reality and give it a new name.

With all respect to Satoshi Nakamoto, I think he chose the name Bitcoin poorly. It implies that it is a coin, version of money, yet there are minor similarities between Bitcoin and the legal tender coins.

Instead, IMHO, he should have chosen a name that reflects the nature of the Bitcoin, much more similar to the precious metals and other resources, store of value and incidentally similar to currency, but definitely not the virtual electronic currency it is portrayed as now.

I've studied all bitcoin.org documents as well as what the Bitcoin Foundation has produced, yet I have only seen the same original motion being repeated endlessly, regrettably the Bitcoin community being left wheel-spinning to deal with the practical challenges.

Let me give few examples:

1. Dealing with the regional law and tax regimes - defining Bitcoin as asset instead of money will allow more efficient tax management.

2. Financial regulations - the status quo inevitably antagonises the current financial regulatory regimes, implying that there is a new kind of currency they cannot and will never be able to regulate - if defined as a resource, mined like any other finite resource, and sold and bought on the markets like any other resource (unregulated), the financial institutions may well accept it as something they can trade and not something that threatens their (in many cases self perceived) authority.

3. Common man on the street - the first though that comes when exposed to the idea of Bitcoin is "is it legal, will I get into trouble by using it?", instead one could simply relate to the current legal status of any precious metal, it is just a commodity (albeit of different, digital nature) that can be traded for any legal tender on the one of the many unregulated exchanges.

4. Bank - if the bank cannot use Bitcoins (not legal tender in any country), then they would not support it, they may as well make its use and adoption more difficult. But if it is just a legal commodity, then they would not see reason to oppose it or obstruct its adoption.

5. Terrorists - no one is objecting the terrorists using cash to fund their ventures, but suddenly, the anonymous use of the Bitcoin currency makes it an evil tool - removing the "currency" and "coin" from the definition of Bitcoin would allow for more objective view on the properties of Bitcoin, disassociation from the "evil" anonymous nature of the cash.

6. And so on...

MY QUESTIONS TO THE BROADER BITCOIN COMMUNITY:

Do you agree or disagree with me, please argue you point here - serious discussions only, please.

Do you think the time is right, it is realistic to get the majority of the Bitcoin community to come to a consensus with regards to more precisely defining and naming Bitcoin? If yes, what do you think will be the right process to follow - centralised, decentralised, combination of the two? If no, please argue you reasons here.

1 & 2 - You propose disguising what Bitcoin is to change taxation and avoid financial regulations?  I propose using Bitcoin to expose how inefficient and over-regulated the current system is and CHANGE those taxation and financial regulations.

3 - There are no laws for or against Bitcoin usage yet.  People could get in trouble for using it, we just don't know.  Calling it something it isn't in hopes of avoiding trouble with the law seems asinine.

4 - Banks can use Bitcoin, there is no reason they cannot.

5 - Again, you're just attempting to disguise what Bitcoin is to paint it in a pretty light?  Terrorists will use Bitcoin regardless of what we call it - why deceive people by trying to hide what it can and will be used for?

E-Gold tried that. Unfortunately, it's all semantics. Anonymous value trades of any kind will eventually have the same outcome in the face of big government no matter how you spin it.

Disagree.

The idea that if it was just named different everything will work and if it isn't everything will fail is kinda simplistic thinking don't you think?

If Bitcoin "acts" as a currency regardless if you call it a "pig simulator" governments & financial institutions are going to move to regulate it like a currency.  I mean these entities aren't run by nine year olds who will just not realize that "Bitcoin the non-currency" has all the properties and is being used as a defacto currency.  The name of something isn't really relevant under the law.  I mean if drug dealers started calling themselves "herbal supplement specialists" it wouldn't suddenly exploit this massive loophole under the law and make their activities legal.  

I would point out even if beneficial you can't force a name change.  Call it something else if you want, but as long as a significant portion of community calls it Bitcoin well it would be like saying gold bullion shouldn't be called gold bullion it should be called "solid form of element AU poured into ingots".  Go ahead and try to convince the whole world to change but I doubt it will be effective.


Finally to the "common man" Bitcoin is already confusing trying to explain to someone that:

 Anyone remember e-gold and what happend to them? Bitcoin is only more volatile, it might survive goverment attacks, time will tell

@ vdragon
@ Matthew N. Wright

Can you not see the fundamental difference between Bitcoin and e-gold?

Let me rephrase this, can you point to the similarities between Bitcoin and e-gold that could be used to construct the demise of Bitcoin the way it was applied with e-gold?

@ DeathAndTaxes

I am not proposing to merely rename Bitcoin, that would be pointless, my proposition is to evaluate and re-define Bitcoin, also re-name it to match its more accurate definition.

@  SgtSpike

The foundation of my proposal is that Bitcoin is not currency or money. Yes, incidentally it can be used as such, but its properties are more similar to the natural resources, and if its definition correctly reflects that, I believe Bitcoin will benefit from it greatly.

You must have misinterpreted my motion - I am not suggesting to disguise Bitcoin, on contrary, I am suggesting to highlight its true nature, instead of what is currently (erroneously IMHO) implied.

Also, by default (of my motion), presenting untruth equals deception, hence presenting Bitcoin as currency instead of resource (albeit not natural, but artificial) is a deception.

The logical way is to arrive at an accurate definition and appropriate name for Bitcoin.

As for taking on any government and changing their economic rules and laws, I can only wish you luck.

 I see and know the difference, but the US goverment has always a wildcard up their sleeve - terrorism. They pronounce everyone who is using it a terrorist, and its over, see how many people will use it then... Just as someone who downloads torrents can go to prison, they can do the same with btc people. You are getting me worng, I like the idea of bitcoin. I have only seen too much shit done by us goverment.

So why are you so confident that you know the "true nature" of Bitcoin (that it is a "resource") when 99% of people here disagree with you?

Not 99%, it more like 100% of the people will disagree with me.  :)

I think earlier I've stated what I believe the reasons for that, IMHO, is because the original Bitcoin paper as well as the follow-up publications made by bitcoin.org and others had repeated the same erroneous view ad nauseam  and managed to entrench it into the people's mind. And now people propagate the same view without giving it a proper thought WRT the negative implications such definition brings to Bitcoin.

I am looking for a way out of this vicious circle - in my opinion, Bitcoin will benefit greatly from being correctly defined, will gain the ability to counter the straw-man arguments (i.e. the terrorist use) as well as integrate into the current legal and financial framework instead of constantly antagonise it.

I am trying to compile a list with the pros and cons the current definition brings to Bitcoin, so I can compare it with the list of pros and cons of the new definition that could bring to Bitcoin.

Hence my post with that regard, I am looking for critique of my view from the few who read and participate in this forum section, so I can stress test my motion, before I present it to the broader Bitcoin user base.

I must add, there is nothing personal that I can gain from this, it is a pure intellectual exercise, the only beneficiary is the Bitcoin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

Bitcoin has properties of money/a currency.
Bitcoin therefore can be and is used as money/a currency.
Yet you (and it seems you alone) claim that it's not money/a currency.

What's your definition of money/a currency?

Yes, it has the property of money, but only if you agree that the gold and silver also has the property of money.

I never stated that it is not money, au contraire, I stated originally that it can be used as money, but there are numerous limitations when doing so.

Like in the quantum physics, the light has the property of a wave and a particle, depending on the point of view.

Same with Bitcoin, it has the property of money and resource, depending on the point of view. So I am advocating to stop treating it as a currency, and give it a proper definition, that acknowledges its property as a resource too.

Well, as you say yourself, its definition depends on your point of view.

You're free to see, define and treat it as you like, a currency, a resource, an asset, whatever,
but anyone else is also free to have another point of view, another definition, treating it differently than you do.

@lassdas

I am curious to know your reasons to keep supporting the status quo definition.

Please share with me the benefits you see Bitcoin being defined as currency, money as the governments keep denying it the "legal tender" status.

I'm not supporting anything,
I just don't care what your definition is, or the governments definition, cuz I have my own and that's enough for me.  ;)

You treat, define, explain Bitcoin however you want and I'll do whatever I want. Deal?

Disagree entirely. With the notable exception of the United States virtually every country in the world has a GST or VAT. Money is exempt from such taxes, but "commodities" are not.  Treating Bitcoin as money avoids the GST/VAT issue right from the start.

Bitcoin seems to be a digitial commodity, such as a share of ownership in a piece of software would be. I am not sure why so many people think it's a currency with such massive fluctuations. Being able to be transferred easily doesn't make something a currency, nor does the opposite make it a commodity, I admit. If anyone needs an argument why it could be considered a commodity more than a currency though, since when did currencies *penalize* their users for spending money (the reason people don't spend commodities)?

i think someone has only read the first page of a SEC/FSA hand book and pooped their pants thinking the world will cave in because they see E-Money being regulated.

money and E-money. think of them as government trademarks for the description of FIAT EG uses the symbols  £ $

separately currency can be any form of exchangable item. although money is in the category of currency, the term 'currency' just means group of items used for trading. it is not a government owned/monitored/regulated term.

people in africa trade bags of food, milk, goats, mobile phones. that is their currency. and the government doesnt do anything about it.

facebook trade credits, personal information and labour time. that is their currency and because its online its an E-Currency/virtual currency.

both those terms are not to be confused with money or E-Money.

E-Money or money is the term used for the trading 'device'(paper/computer/coin) that uses that countries FIAT symbology. EG  £  $

E-Gold could have made coins till the cows came home no issues if they never used government symbols. but as soon as the government realised there was a $ symbol on it and the guy was trying to deceive people into thinking it was dollar coins.. the government cracked the whip. under counterfeit charges. so the lesson to be learnt is, dont use government symbols or make it appear as government issued.

bitcoin is not money or E-Money.

but bitcoin is though a currency, just like when you were kids swapping pokemon cards for a packet of crisps or in prison swapping cigarettes with 'bubba' so he doesn't invade your rectum.

so to end that ill repeat one more time bitcoin is not a 'money' or 'e-money' which is government regulated. but bitcoin is a currency.

now to clear up the word commodity. a commodity is usually a raw material traded or used to then make different end products/purposes.
shares are not commodities. but you can own shares of a commodity.

a share is a item you own (financial asset)
a bitcoin is something you own (personal asset)
different assets have their own tax laws.

not everything on the planet is taxed by sales tax/VAT.

UK vat is basically items that are sold by VAT registered retailers that have been mass produced(1) and made up of multiple parts(2) for consumers, with some exceptions to that rule.

1.thats why someone selling a single original antique painting doesnt charge vat but someone selling thousands of copies of the same painting does charge VAT

2.thats why some fresh veg is VAT free where as a ready meal (microwave ready prepared dinners) is not vat free even though its been made up of purely the ingredients that were vat free.

I like dealing with the foundations.

Money is 'anything' that is used as a intermediary for trade of goods.

Bitcoin has expanded the 'anything' part into the realm of the abstract (MATH in short).

Now, please tell me how anybody is going to come up with a consensus on whether to do math or not to do math?

Currently, exchanges are the weak link. Sort of, you can easily by pass them if desired.

But, if Bitcoin becomes a means of being paid and is utilized as a Global Currency, exchanges are not needed. You won't be trading your BTC for another currency. You will be trading other currencies for BTC and that can be done with anyone that currently has BTC.

As I see it, the only way to regulate BTC is through the Power Companies. If they turn off the Electricity, it would make it difficult to trade them but not impossible.

gopher, perhaps you aim to help, but the thrust of the OP is such that I can't see how it helps.

There is a fundamental of economics that only products can buy products. Money is a medium of exchange between products, and develops the properties of a store of value and unit of account. Bitcoin excels at all these. It has particular strength for remote transactions and as an inelastic monetary base.

I recommend this paper which I am sure you will find interesting too:

http://dev.economicsofbitcoin.com/mastersthesis/mastersthesis-surda-2012-11-19b.pdf

wrt to governments. There are 200 nation state jurisdictions in the world. Bitcoin transcends all their boundaries. None of them have attempted to curtail its usage, so bitcoin should not be hobbled by its community just on the theoretical basis that one of them might make a fuss one day. Onward!

solex,

at last, someone making a logical comment.

I will read through the paper you've referenced, thanks a lot for it.

wrt governments, I do not challenge their right to recognise any electronic currency or try to shut down its use - on contrary, what I am saying is that while Bitcoin (or any electronics, non-government issued currency to that effect) is not recognised by any government as a legal tender, all licensed institutions would be breaking the law if they use it as defined. And that would affect the adoption of Bitcoin negatively. For that reason, I proposed that we look deep into the root characteristics of Bitcoin, see if we can re-define Bitcoin as an electronic-resource rather than tender and give reason to those markets to adopt the use of Bitcoin.

My motion is that if the Bitcion is redefined as resource, something that the broadest user base can use legally today, then majority of the government-licensed users as well as the governments themselves will have no reason to keep rejecting it, on contrary, the clear benefits to using Bitcoin will prevail over their concerns that they would be breaking the law by using it.

That is pure and utter nonsense.

Currency =/= Legal tender and legal tender obviously doesn't mean what you think it does.

Also your belief that redefining bitcoin would cause it to escape regulation is dubious.  FinCEN for example regulates gold dealers, money orders, and stored value cards (think cellphone airtime).  None are legal tender, none are illegal, and none escape regulation simply because they are defined as "non currency".


MSB regulations in the US for example use the term "currency substitute".  Even if one went through the totally dubious effort to redefine bitcoin as "something else" with the stroke of a single regulator pen they could

The law isn't a video game.  There are no cheat codes.  Generally it works on common sense.  If the law is trying to outlaw x then making y which has all the properties of x is going to be outlawed.  If the law requires compliance when doing x then coming up with BS reasons why y isn't x doesn't really matter.  The legislators and regulators opinion is what matters.  Nobody, I mean not even a 9 year old child, is going to be fooled by the redefining.

Can I buy stuff with "X", can I sell stuff for "X", does "x" act as a store of value, is "X" as viable medium of exchange?  Then "X" is a currency.  Period.  It doesn't matter if you say it isn't regulators will say it is and if they don't they will use language like in the MSB regulations and say it is a "currency substitute".

I'd agree that the name is not as good as it could be, given that Bitcoin is clearly modeled after gold as opposed to fiat coinage.  Some of the other terminology does match, i.e. "miners" as opposed to "minters".  It might be slightly easier to explain the features to people (particularly goldbugs) if it was called "bitgold" or "digital gold".

In fact, the precursor idea to Bitcoin was, quite naturally, called Bit Gold:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

However e-gold was indicted in 2007 and so I suspect Satoshi, being quite paranoid, still had that event fresh in his mind when writing his paper, and so opted for another name so as to avoid controversy.

Either way, the horse has long left the barn, the only way you're going to redefine the naming and terminology is by starting your own new cryptocurrency.

You're still trying to split the proverbial hair. If it is used as tender, it is tender. The biggest difference between Bitcoin as 'tender' and others forms is that it is abstract. You can't 'seize' it or freeze it. You might try and grab the private key but if a back up or a strong memory exists not much was accomplished. The moment it is seized or froze is the moment that it is moved to another abstract place holder. It is fiat on steroids without any physical representation.

Just imagine this scenario: The government seizes a private key and takes control. It is now under their control. A unknown third party has a copy and moves the money from that address. Now, did the government that now has control steel the money? Maybe the prosecutor needed a new yacht. Who moved it? And if the suspect didn't move it, was he even guilty of anything?

Just an example of many possible scenarios. Caveat Emptor will reign with this tender. I also for see for that same reason most people will not want to hold the tender but use it as a transactional currency to acquire things. Only people that are fully aware and have taken precautions will want to hold it.

It's not governments that are the threat, it is humans. Attrition will slowly erode the amount of BTC forcing the FED (hehe...) to move the placement holder to increase the supply. This system will actually reward good savers if it remains. What the FED has attributed to attrition will have a certain percentage of 'savers' just holding their money occurring as they increase the supply. (I know, no NEW coins will be produced.) It just allows the ones still in existence and being used to be more useful.

Here is the irony, the governments have strapped future generations with debts that they no nothing about. Heck, they probably were not even born yet. Those governments are expecting that generation to pay debts that they have incurred. But, if the next generation uses BTC, those debts will go unpaid and be put back onto the ones that caused the problems. UNLESS they themselves switch. It will be a Global default.

Just imagine if you were Greek and put all your money in BTC. Greece lost its tax revenue and you came out way ahead. The whole tax scheme currently employed by governments will have to be overhauled. Taxing physical possessions  or transfer of physical possessions will have to take precedence over taxing tender or 'money'. On a business scale this will work just fine but as always on a personal level it will remain the same. They will no nothing about your personal transactions. Just like yard sales. Your supposed to report that income or transfer but hardly anybody does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender)

No, what you write is utter nonsense.

Irrespective of how much you want Bitcoin to be recognised as legal tender, it is not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not in a 1000 years!

Knowing governments all over the world, if they have no control of a tender, they will not recognise it as a legal tender. Hence, Bitcoin, defined in its current state, stands no chance to be recognised as a legal tender by any proper government, full stop.

And if it is not recognised as legal tender, all government licensed institutions will reject using it or refuse to support it, as doing so they will be deemed to be breaking the law.

I say again, does not matter how much we hate this, this is fact!

What I failed to mention at the beginning of this tread is that I do not question the legality of or the right of the Joe Common to use Bitcoin. I as well as hundreds of thousands other Joe's are using Bitcoin successfully every day, but we are not not regulated by the government to use legal ender only, we are free to use any tender, even barter, to trade freely.

My point is about Bitcoin gaining much broader support, from across all industries, including the strictly-regulated industries, i.e. financial services prviders and government departments. And the only way I see this happening is by not antagonising the legacy monetary system, calling (and hoping) for its demise, but start acting intelligently.

I seriously doubt that the Bitcoin community will come to its senses and will be able to formulate intelligent strategy. But that does not stop me from posting openly on this forum and calling for other's opinions on this matter. Anyway, I am not holding my breath...

Another intelligent post, thank you very much!

I never said I wanted or think Bitcoin will be legal tender.  It likely never will be legal tender, not next year, not next decade.  However it doesn't have to be legal tender to be a currency.

Currency =/= legal tender.

Nothing prohibit anyone (at least in the US) from accepting deposits and payment in currency other than legal tender.  Period.  

In the US the Euro isn't legal tender but banks are free to allow Euro denominated accounts, accept Euro deposits, even allow clients to engage in currency conversion.   The fact that the Euro is legal tend in the Eurozone is utterly irreverent to the fact that is IS NOT legal tender in the US and much like Bitcoin probably never will be.  Still entities (from Joe Sixpack up to billion dollar corporations) are free to voluntarily write contracts denominated in Euros (or Gold or Bitcoins or bushels of wheat), accept payments according to that contract and hold deposits in the currency of the contract.

Now the federal reserve note being the only legal tender in the US means that in the event of a contract dispute (i.e. you didn't pay me those BTC you owe me) the only legal remedy available to me is to get a judgement for the value of the BTC in legal tender.  As an example if I prove in court that you owe me 100 BTC and the value of 1 BTC is $30 then the courts can only issue a judgement against you and for me in the amount of $3,000 USD.  I can be compensated for the loss of value but I have no legal remedy to ensure I receive the BTC back instead.   Still even if BTC was defined as a digital commodity that wouldn't change either. 

Lender tender doesn't mean what you think it does and since you haven't ever explained your flawed understanding of legal tender it is difficult to know what bogus definition you have in your mind.

Simple version:
People are free to engage in whatever currency they want to use.
Creditors must accept repayment in legal tender for debts owed.
If you seek legal action your remedy may be limited to a judgement in legal tender for the value of the loss.

Legal tender means nothing more.  The fact that Bitcoin will probably never be legal tender in any country is of little consequence.

to help explain death and taxes meaning it might be worth hitting up the books again

money, the monetary system, e-money are all about FIAT (legal tender) you know the amounts that have a $ £ symbol linked to it.

currency is ANYTHING used in whole or as part of exchange where by more then 2 parties agree on the value.

eg if i invented a rabbit credit and only me and another person ever done one trade using it. then it is just a bartered exchance.

if a few people all used rabbit credits and they had a set understading of its value. that is then a currency.

currency can be vodka, facebook credits, airmiles, sexual favours (in some countries) food, mobile phones the list is endless.

currency is just a grouping term of all the things that can be used as a means of exchange for goods and services. it is not legal tender itself. although MONEY is within the group known as currency as its used as a means of trade. it does not mean that all currency's are automatically legal tender because they act like money does.

'foreign currency' is a laymans term for not native to this country and when used in context of other countries legal tender then it should be used on the context that using the word currency is just a laymans lazy way of not listing every countries FIAT MONEY.

and as for renaming the bitcoin to resemble gold. that is flawed too.

gold is a commodity. and a commodity is a raw material used to produce other products (jewellery, electronics)
much like oil makes car fuel, plastics. wheat makes flour and other things

bitcoin is not a commodity. the only resemblance to gold is the store of value and the term "mining". which leads on that people have stupidly linked btcoin to gold purely from the term "mining". where it would for the bases of use, purpose and comparisons "miners" should be called "vectoring" (due to use of elliptic curve) or something that actually corresponds to solving the digitial puzzle that some people call it. then the snowball effect would be a better understanding that bitcoin is not something you use to design spaceships, motherboards or to add ingredients to, to make a meal(commodity). but its something you hold and own (an asset) much like valuable art a car. its a end product with clear ownership.

and this thought has came from 3 different accountants i spoke to.. and not just a brain fart opinion of just me.

and as for going to court. you can go into court with the mindset that you want the return of property. its not limited to the financial valuation of the product. the only time it becomes a financial thing is if the possession has changed hands again and it is impossible to return it to the rightful owner. then a financial compensation would be the only last resort. but i will say that is UK courts. so speak to a solicitor/lawyer before filing a court action for full and proper guideance

What you're failing to understand is that, ultimately, it doesn't matter what a government defines as A or B.  What matters is what everyday people decide to use as money.

If they decide to use bitcoin (and the reasons are compelling) what someone else wishes to happen, be they govt or individual, is irrelevant.  They will go with the flow, or lose.

Another wishful thinking.

No, I understand just well.

But, and I hate to say this, in the world I live in, the government gets 100% their way, 100% of the time. And, to add insult to the injury, majority of the people support their government, to the dismay of the minority.

Show me a historic example where some people decided to do something against the government's way, and then the government followed the flow.

Wait a second... I now realise... it has happened... in Utopia!

I am fine with calling all "this" Bitcoin. I actually think that "Bitcoin" is a great trademark. Please don't touch that if you finally decide to go on your "Save the whole world campaign" instead of trolling.

nebulus, what you wish is safe, not only from my possible actions, but by design.

One of the best features of this whatever we call is that the only way it can change it's nature is by consensus of all users, and that, I am absolutely certain of, will never happen, as majority users will never come to their senses, never mind consensus to anything.

Hence, Bitcoin will remain Bitcoin, the "currency of the future, the slayer of all legal tender, the saviour of bankrupt governments".

I have no intention to safe the world, I am sorry that you have so grossly misinterpreted my "campaign", I was merely probing small part of the Bitcoin community to get a general sense in possible reaction to a problem that I see, but not necessarily others see. Not trolling at all.

My bad...

The more I look into bitcoin, the more I realise it is going to be the crypto currency that pushes the barriers, but will also most likely die in the process - think of it like napster for digital money.

However, thinking that now is the time to set the definitions is wrong.  That comes far later, and to be honest, it is not the early adopter who gets to make that decision.  That happens when your local political representative starts talking about it with other non technical people. Their understanding will come from other mainstream users who will talk about it as money - so that definition of it as currency will be implied, and that is good enough for law makers.

To see this in action, just think of the way that so many definitions have been created thanks to the mainstream taking ownership of the internet.  We had it with the lawful status of email, the introduction and lawful usage of a digital signature.  Another example is the way that the data protection laws are manipulated by organisations to their own agendas etc.

We are living in interesting times! ;)

I agree with you.

I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.

Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.

That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.

I am going to repeat DeathAndTaxes because he makes an unanswerably powerful point:

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that bitcoin needs to be defined at all ... right now it is just "bitcoin".

The technology is still evolving, and rapidly also, already it is capable of doing things completely unlike any simple "resource". In the far future, "bitcoin" could be a whole concept definition basis of its own, for example, do you think people defined what a "wheel" was before it was invented, refined, matured as a technology? By defining, it you are trying to put a highly complex, multiply-connected surface in to a simple closed box ... and it just doesn't work.

Leave it be, it needs no definition to be a palpable reality and it grates on many levels to attempt to do so. Somethings just cannot be defined, labelled, controlled, enforced, as much as you wish them to be.

I mostly disagree with what DeathAndTaxes wrote in this tread, it is either poorly or not at all substantiated; or it is not applicable to my motion - go and read the tread from the beginning, I refer to the reasonable and logical replies, then make a relevant comment, I will appreciate it.

@ marcus_of_augustus:

The reason I believe the Bitcoin needs redefining is to get some traction in being adopted by the regulated markets (i.e. financial institutions, government departments, etc); and when it comes to value exchange and trading, these markets are major players in contributing to any GDP, so no one should ignore them.

Irrespective of the wishful thinking that the Banks should accept Bitcoin, it is only that, a wishful thinking, as any financial institution is prevented by law to use alternative to the legal tender currencies.

Hence, if we keep Bitcoin defined as a currency (which I believe it is not) we will never gain the acceptance of the broader markets, Bitcoin will always remain a niche player it is now. And yes, $250M or even $1Bn market cap is a niche player. 

The irony of all this is, as I wrote earlier, if the majority of the Bitcoin community is happy to play with a niche product, it will stay as such, and there is nothing the minority can do about it.

False, once again you have no understanding of what the term "legal tender" means.  In the US the EUR is NOT legal tender so therefore financial institutions are prohibited from being involved in transactions involving EUR, right?  In the US there is only one legal tender, the federal reserve note (and no longer issued US notes).  

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103

This is why for example every Forex exchange, foreign fund wire service, or remittance service is illegal.  Oh wait... they aren't.

That is because no such restriction on "legal tender" exists for financial institutions.  

Once again currency =/= legal tender.

Bitcoin can be a currency and not be legal tender, much like in the US foreign currencies are still currencies but they are not legal tender.  Likewise the US dollar is still a currency outside of the US but for most parts of the world it is not legal tender (a few foreign countries also have made the US dollar legal tender).

gopher, you don't seem to understand any of the words you are using.  It sounds like you have been given some poor legal advice, and are getting carried away with it.

If you'd like to have a serious discussion, please start by defining each of these terms: currency, money, and legal tender.  Then start citing laws, from your country or otherwise, that substantiate your claims that Bitcoin is illegal.

As a matter of courtesy I gave one of the posters a popular link where the term legal tender is defined. I suggest you go back, find it, click on that link, see if it makes sense to you. You may even find a bit of information that legal tender refers to any tender that is legal somewhere, not only in one's particular choice of residence, so EU, USD and even (believe it or not) FKP is legal tender, as all these has been issued by a government. Those respective government refer to their own issue (legal tender) as local currency and to all other, foreign government issue (again legal tender) as foreign currency.

To all governments, everything else (that is not legal tender) is just an alternative currency. And they treat it as such.

But I couldn't care less if you decide not to follow my suggestion to educate yourself, it seems to me that you've already made your mind, and I am definitely not interested in changing it.

@ benjamindees:

Aw, do you care to point me in the right direction, perhaps provide a link where a good, popular definition contradicts what I have stated?
I will really appreciate it.

Oxford English Dictionary definition of "money"

noun
A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively:I counted the money before putting it in my wallet; he borrowed money to modernize the store

• (moneys or monies) formal sums of money:a statement of all moneys paid into and out of the account
• the assets, property, and resources owned by someone or something; wealth:the college is very short of money
• financial gain:the main aim of a commercial organization is to make money
• payment for work; wages:she accepted the job at the public school since the money was better
• a wealthy person or group:her aunt had married money

Definition of coin
noun
    a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money

Definition of banknote
noun
    a piece of paper money, constituting a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum to the bearer on demand: a £100 banknote


Is Bitcoin a medium of exchange? True
Is Bitcoin in the form of a flat disc or piece of metal? False
Is Bitcoin a central bank's promissory note on paper? False
= Therefore, is Bitcoin money? No.

However:
-By the above definition, a medium of exchange that is only coins or only banknotes is not money. Therefore the currency of Laos is not money - they have no coins.
-Does the definition "a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum" even make sense? No. A promise to pay you what you already have is a circular reference.
-By the above definition, a bank account does not contain money - computer balances transferred from other computer balances are not coins or paper. However, the below definition states that a bank account does contain money:

Definition of bank balance
noun
    the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment

Since the definition of money, in the most authoritative work defining word meanings in the English language, does not correlate with even the simplest concepts and usage of money today, and is in contradiction with itself, we must therefore extrapolate that the definition of money can expand to new mediums of exchange beyond coin or paper or that issued by a central bank, to anything that shares the collective concepts associated with money.

You can have your own opinion, you can have your own attitude but you can't have your own facts.

The quoted segment is 100% false.  Tell you what find a lawyer willing to put that in a legal opinion on the law firms letterhead and I will pay you 200% of the legal cost.  Easy way to double your money.

In the United State the EUR or FKP is absolutely NOT legal tender.  Not ifs, ands or buts.  It is a cornerstone of US contract law and jurisprudence.   If I owe you a debt of 100 Euros you MUST (if the contract is established under US law) accept US dollars as payment.  Period.  It doesn't matter if you prefer Euros (or Gold or Bitcoins) over Dollars.  As a creditor you are obligated to accept US dollars "for all debts public and private".  That is the very definition of legal tender.  An obligation to for a creditor to accept legal tender for debts.  Taxes are debts.  The IRS considers a taxed owed the instant the obligation is created not when a return is filed.  As such the IRS is obligated to accept dollars but not required to accept any other currency which isn't legal tender.  If Euro or Yen were legal tender in the US the IRS would be obligated under the US code (just like any other creditor) to allow taxpayers to pay taxes due in foreign currency.

Since creditors must accept repayment in legal tender in the hypothetical debt above even if you sued me for nonpayment, and proved to the court I am indebted to you for 100 Euros (or ounces of gold, or Ferraris, or even Bitcoins), under no circumstances will a US court issue a judgement for 100 Euros.  US judgements are ALWAYS in legal tender and in the US (and thus US courts) that is US money and US money only (Federal Reserve notes and previously issued notes).  If the court finds that you have proven the claim, they will attempt to award damages in US dollars for the damages you suffered. In this hypothetical example most likely this would be 100 Euros (plus any late fees or other damages as allowed by contract law) * EUR/USD exchange rate.

The fact that you are willing to lie, make up facts, and engage in FUD to prove your dubious point shows you aren't interested in facts, just trying to push an agenda, so I won't see any responses.  It isn't worth the time.

For anyone else who values facts of FUD and falsehoods:

In recent news Panama is considering modifying its statutes to make the EUR (in addition to the USD) legal tender.  If all foreign currencies are legal tender then obviously this debate wouldn't even exist. The reality is that under Panamanian law the USD is currently legal tender and EUR is not.  Panama is considering amending that legislation.  If it passes a debtor could settle a debt using EITHER USD or EUR and Panamanian courts could issue judgements in either currency as both would be legal tender.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/10/15/panama-wants-the-euro-as-legal-tender/

As a historical note, in the US, prior to 1857 gold & silver foreign coins (but not paper notes) were legal tender due to insufficient circulating US money.  The coinage act of 1857 changed that and it has never been repealed by future legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1857

Also a nice laymans tutorial on the concept of legal tender and what it isn't.
http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2013/01/legal-tender-101.html


Of course one could also ask the Treasury Dept

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx

Note no mention of United States money AND all all other foreign money, just United States money.  Notice that credit cards, checks and money orders are not legal tender.  Legal tender has an exact and specific meaning. All currency is not money.  All money is not legal tender.  Legal tender is both money and currency.

Bitcoin isn't even recognized as a currency by current US law (although that probably will change).  Even if Bitcoin is a currency it probably wouldn't be considered money in any locale.  Regardless of if it is a currency and/or money it won't be legal tender unless a nation passes laws explicitly making it legal tender.  

People with power and monopoly rights to the use of force don't just throw their hands up and say "you got me, I give up" when people find a loophole.

Ain't that the truth! ;)

So, then you admit that Bitcoin qualifies as currency under this definition?

I think Bitcoin would be considered a currency. It will never be considered legal tender in the U.S. but I could see it being used as Legal Tender in a smaller country that is fed up with its devalued currency. (possible yes, probable  - not so sure)


Even though Bitcoin may be a currency it has has not been officially recognized as such. There is a lot of definitional issues and general education that needs to be addressed for more widespread Bitcoin acceptance

that's my .00064 btc worth (at the current exchange rate)

Close but:

What determines the worth of the coin or bank note? For paper it's the Number written on it and the anti-counterfeiting measures to insure it genuine. The coins or paper are backed by trust.

May I point you to:  Casascius BTC Coins, it's a coin but the substance of the coin is meaningless as is the paper or copper,zinc,nickel, etc... on other fiat coins (except the gold and silver ones).

Splitting hairs in a pedantic realm is good for lawyers tho...

What happened to gopher? I was waiting for his response to this question.

In the meantime I am suggesting that XBT should be the ISO currency code for Bitcoin...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147827.msg1570253#msg1570253

Of course it isn't money, why would you need to make a topic to argue that lol.

In the figurative sense it is money but technically it is just a reincarnation of the dollar. It is USD/Euros etc, just in a different form but ultimately the only purpose of it is to be converted back to dollars.

Multiple independent currencies cannot exist in the same economic system, they have to be based on each other. This means that x currency has to be worth 5 of y currency, and vice versa, but at that point in time you might as well just stick to the most used one, being dollars.

This is the Legal subforum not the Economics or Dictionary subforum.

When attempting to define money, currency or funds then authoritative sources would be Constitutions, Statutes, court decisions, etc. for determining the rule or definition.

Egold was a company and had servers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff)