I'm not going to go there and figure out the context...
but sending an address coins IS a risk and a barrier to people and not too much of a stretch to consider it as one side making unregulatable or restrictable IOU promises.
Until you make use of a third party or escrow, bitcoin is inherently an IOU risk, that's its nature.
Explain how that isn't true?
Where I'd disagree is how its any different than any other currency: those also require third party or escrow enforcement. the difference is, they don't give you the option to do otherwise.
I don't quite understand where you're coming from. Once you send coins to an address, they're gone forever, unless the owner of that address has a reason to send them back. It can't be an IOU when nothing is owed, unless you're referring to the good or service which is charging in Bitcoin. At that point, they'd owe you for the BTC, but you never IOU a Bitcoin, as once you have the tally in your wallet that states you own it, that's that. Then again, in a way, any form of money can be perceived as an IOU, as nobody holds gold with the hopes that they will someday eat the gold for sustenance. If people decided gold was no longer money, you'd have a bunch of shiny yellow stuff that could be useful in wiring, but not much else.
