I disagree that Bitcoin is money, currency.

[gopher]

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.

[SgtSpike]

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?

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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:

Bitcoin isn't a currency it just an asset that only exists online and has no value or utility other than as a store of value or medium of exchange but it isn't a currency, it just happens to have the very properties of a currency so you should get some, not to use as a currency, but to keep as a digital asset you never knew you needed and if by chance someone else desires this digital asset, you could engage in some trade using this non-currency in a transactions that resembles the use of currency, but isn't.

[vdragon]

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

[gopher]

@ 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?

[gopher]

@ 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.

[vdragon]

@ 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?

 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.

[SgtSpike]

@ 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.

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?

[gopher]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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

[lassdas]

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.

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?

[gopher]

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.

[lassdas]

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.

[gopher]

@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.

[lassdas]

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?

[ArticMine]

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.

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.

[Matthew N. Wright]

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)?

[franky1]

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.

[JusticeForYou]

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.