Actually they consider it a commodity - very wisely I would say.  Lucky for me I bought my commodity at their site.  No misconceptions of any kind of intended promise were conveyed - it was a simple sales transaction and the secure accounting utility was transfered into my ownership.  When I need to sell some secure accounting utilities at their site, I take it to the market place and the same message is portrayed.

If there aren't any in the world (which I doubt), they can be made any day.  You would need to go a long way to convince people that barter has suddenly turned illegal.

Wouldn't it be illegal in most parts of the world to issue currency backed by an empty promise?

If I bought an internet commodity however at MtGox, called Bitcoin, and it is known to have fairly secure properties as an accounting utility, wouln't that be legal in most parts of the world if I would like to exchange it for goods or services or to sell it?

Really bitcoin.org - see a lawyer about the "currency" thing please.  Are you seeking cheap publicity.  As you are definitely getting it.  For now I will continue to barter my Bitcoin accounting utility which I have bought at MtGox and which I can sell at MtGox if someone wants to buy it or accept it in any barter exchange transaction at the fair market value attributed to my/your Bitcoin accounting utility.  And respectfully everybody - I declare that I am not giving you any currency through the process of our barter, buy or sell transactions - but a Bitcoin secure accounting utility.

Semantics is what a court of law is all about.  Books and books of it.  If you sell / issue me a currency - certain expectations goes with it, isn't there a promise accompanying a currency, a promise to be upheld?  If I barter a goat for your pig - that is where the transfer ends - just at that.

Can Bitcoin be called currency by decree, as announced on bitcoin.org which seems to be kind of authoritative about Bitcoin and also usually the first place people are introduced to Bitcoin?

Would a more neutral stand point / opinion of bitcoin.org not be more suitable?

Even though it is used as a medium of exchange in the same sense as marbles on the playground, or corporate perks, loyalty points, any liquid barter good, etc. etc.

The poster's comments are solely his opinion, in a forum like this we do not need to give you permission to have your own opinion - it's a requirement.  We are not rendering any service of any kind - but expressing individual opinion.  This is a universal disclaimer for all posts of Cloud9 made on this forum.

Bitcoin P2P Crypto-Commodity

OK, so Bitcoin is a medium of exchange.  No one can question that.  And it seems a very effective medium of exchange.  

But is it a currency?  Is it money, backed by a store of value to be redeemable from the issuer giving the issuer no option not to accept it to be redeemed?  Or is it a secure accounting utility with a user allocated value due to market forces?

Can a Bitcoin site (bitcoin.org) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin a currency or not - because it has a decentralized nature?

Can a Bitcoin site (mtgox.com) decide individually whether to call Bitcoin an internet commodity or not - because it has a decentralized nature?

Can every Bitcoin holder, merchant, trader, etc. decide individually how they interpret Bitcoins?

Does Bitcoin allow for modern day barter transactions between the fairly secure Bitcoin Accounting Utility and a good/service?

See this legal ideas with regards to barter exchange as opposed to virtual currency (Scroll down to the end to Matthew C 's answer):

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/finance-securities-law/LAW_COR_FSL/46277-12027705

Can Bitcoin be interpreted as an internet utility which can be bartered for any number of goods/services/other?

Is bitcoin.org 's blatant misrepresentation of Bitcoin not misleading?

"P2P Virtual Currency
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer currency. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new money or tracks transactions. These tasks are managed collectively by the network."

"... no central authority ... tracks transactions ... " - Can anyone not track transactions on the blockchain (provided Bitcoin was not laundered - and laundering Bitcoin would be illegal)?

P2P Virtual Currency - Does a currency not require a store of value backing it?

Does Bitcoin's only value derive from its secure, transferable utility value as an internet commodity described by MtGox?  Have we bought an internet commodity that we are bartering for goods/services/other as a medium of exchange?  Or have we been issued a virtual currency with a backed store of value - to be redeemed, without option not to accept, from the backing entity on demand?

Would "P2P Crypto Accounting Utility" not be a more aptly description?  Would it not be less incriminating to bitcoin.org 's author who identifies his Bitcoins as currency - even though it is not backed, or redeemable from an entity, without option not to accept?

Doesn't Bitcoin respect the Equation of Exchange which is a tautology?  Can a tautology be reconsidered?  Is a tautology an assumption?

If the sum of goods/service/other increases and the sum of the medium of exchange remains constant - won't deflation in terms of the medium of exchange's value ratio against the sum of goods/services/other follow?  Isn't this deflation suppose to be allocated pro-rata to the sum of the medium of exchange holders and not to a select few?  Isn't it an indication of productivity if the medium of exchange's value ratio against the sum of goods/services/other devaluated?  Shouldn't everybody on a pro-rata basis be rejoicing that humanity's productivity has added to the goods/services/other that they can exchange for the medium of exchange they are holding because they sacrificed earlier joys by holding on to it?  Didn't gold as a medium of exchange had a fairly constant quantity of existence - although it could be divided down to the molecular / atomic level - ensuring equitable wealth distribution to all holders of the medium of exchange automatically?  Did this happen without interest rate adjustments?  Does everybody get and pay the same interest rates?  Who benefit from imbalances in usury?

Did the dropping of the Gold standard start the taking from Jack (pensioners, savers and holders of the money supply) to give to John (labor) for a job well done for the taker (democratically elected government, elected by the labor majority triumphing over the saving/depositing minority) ?

Did the dropping of the Gold standard ultimately end up nearly bankrupting everyone including majority labor, and minority pensioners, savers and holders of the money supply, after years of dwindling true value money supply?

Is Bitcoin just hoarded? Didn't 1,173,487.14 Bitcoin changed hands in the last 30 days of the 6,472,000 in existence on MtGox exchange alone?  Didn't 103,665 Bitcoins on MtGox alone (www.mtgox.com - trade page) changed hands in the last day?  Have Bitcoin as a medium of exchange now been distributed among the masses?  Is this a good thing not to have such concentrated Bitcoin wealth?

And now the blockchain has been stucked for half an hour on block 129403 : http://blockexplorer.com/

Is Centralization a good thing for difficulty adjustment?  If you DDOS the a 50% mining pool - can you take over the network with half the hash rate?

Solution:

Decentralized pooled-mining client monitors individual mining bitcoin clients for solution block finds - only pay out (proportionally to monitored clients in proportion to hash rates minus percentage to client monitor developer) to bitcoin client's who had the decentralized pooled-mining client monitor activated at the exact synchronized clock set time instance when the block was found.

It is also not in Tycho's interest to double spend - as all will know who compromised the network - there can only be one 50% majority entity.  And I also think Tycho is in it for the long run - central authority or not!

Here's some implementations:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bitcoins-Wallet/198753920160158

No mentioning about Bitcoins being laundered here:  http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164865-senators-tell-doj-to-shut-down-online-drug-market?page=2#comments

Was the senator misquoted by the other paper source?

Or did this source neglect to quote everything because it was not clear enough from the Senator's words if Silk Road and its users are accused of laundering - or whether Bitcoin is accused of laundering activities?

Isn't it the drug trafficking that is under attack?

Isn't paypal a traceable virtual currency as well, just like Bitcoin is a traceable virtual currency?  If you launder paypal credit or Bitcoin addresses - isn't that a problem?

In  which  democracies  is  barter  trade  currently  allowed?

Are  you  not  -  if  you  live  in  a  democracy  that  determines  the  social  contract?

Is Bitcoins an accounting utility or a currency when legally defined?

The  formal  description  of  Bitcoin  on  bitcoin.org  states  it  is  a  currency.

Is the  right  to  mobile phone network airtime a  digital  radio  wave  utility  commodity  that  enables  the  holder  of  the  right  to  communicate  voice  or  data  on  a  Network  over  vast  distances?

Is  the  cryptographic  key  pair  right  to  a  network  working  at  a  high  hash  rate  to  secure  values  attributed  to  a  key  pair  right  a  digital  utility  commodity?

In  short  -  is  Bitcoin.org  a  crypto-commodity  like  MtGox  sells  /  buys  for  fiat  currency?

Does  bitcoin.org  view  bitcoins  bought  from  someone  to  be  bartered  when  exchanged  for  goods  /  services?

Can  bitcoins  be  used  as  medium  of  exchange  in  barter  transactions  for  the  digital  age,  like  pebbles,  eggs,  salt,  gold,  mobile  airtime,  etc.,  have  been  used  in  other  ages  /  different  communities  as  medium  of  exchange  in  barter  transactions?

Or  is  bitcoin.org  proposing  a  rival  currency  to  national  currencies?

Which  of  the  above  would  be  legal  under  the  current  social  contract?

+1

Is this maybe the reason for hostility from the established businesses / political lobbying?  Wouldn't a lot of status quo transfer profits disappear if there is a more economical alternative on the market?