What is "CURRENCY"?

[El]

me thinks "digital currency" is a misnomer.  This misunderstanding may lead to painful legalities due to us common folks not knowing the meaning of the words we use.

From Blacks Law

What is CURRENCY?
Coined money and such bank-notes or other paper money as are authorized by law aud do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange. Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 33; Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. SO, 22 South. 504; Insurance Co. v. Keirou, 27 111. 505; Insurance Co. v. Ivupfer, 2S 111. 332, 81 Am. Dec. 284; Lackey v. Miller, 01 N. O. 20.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/currency/#ixzz2onbOTlow

Please do not post your definitions cut and pasted from merriums or wiki.....they don't stand in a Court of Law, and so, should be disregarded.  I'm concerned with the context and use of the lawful use, of bitcoins as an exchangeable medium.  If you are a Lawyer, I understand you aren't obligated to tell the truth, but, I know you are obligated to follow the Rule of Law.---

All westernized Countries will be held to this definition in their legal systems, it's a standard.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, "currency" is a physical, tangible, tradable, object--authorized by law.

Bitcoins and all other digital mediums of exchange, are not currency.  

[1715050918]

1715050918

[1715050918]

1715050918

[1715050918]

1715050918

[1715050918]

1715050918

[hilariousandco]

Well, regardless, I think the definitions need to be updated because they're now out-dated. This is like the whole gay marriage scenario because marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, but that needs to be updated. People need to get with the times. BTC is a currency.

[DannyHamilton]

me thinks "digital currency" is a misnomer.  This misunderstanding may lead to painful legalities due to us common folks not knowing the meaning of the words we use.

From Blacks Law

What is CURRENCY?
Coined money and such bank-notes or other paper money as are authorized by law aud do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange. Griswold v. Hepburn, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 33; Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. SO, 22 South. 504; Insurance Co. v. Keirou, 27 111. 505; Insurance Co. v. Ivupfer, 2S 111. 332, 81 Am. Dec. 284; Lackey v. Miller, 01 N. O. 20.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/currency/#ixzz2onbOTlow

Please do not post your definitions cut and pasted from merriums or wiki.....they don't stand in a Court of Law, and so, should be disregarded.  I'm concerned with the context and use of the lawful use, of bitcoins as an exchangeable medium.  If you are a Lawyer, I understand you aren't obligated to tell the truth, but, I know you are obligated to follow the Rule of Law.---

All westernized Countries will be held to this definition in their legal systems, it's a standard.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, "currency" is a physical, tangible, tradable, object--authorized by law.

Bitcoins and all other digital mediums of exchange, are not currency.  

Legal definitions change to keep up with changes in technology.  Courts are often called upon to interpret definitions within new and changing conditions.  As such, this definition is very likely to change over time.

As it is, bitcoin already seems to meet the:
"circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange" portion of the definition.

Bitcoin is not "unauthorized", so could it therefore be considered to be authorized?

While bitcoin may not quite meet the literal definition of "Coined money and such bank-notes or other paper money", and therefore may not "be a currency", it most certainly could be considered to be "used as a currency" in the same way that an eight centimeter rock may not "be a hammer", but could still be "used as a hammer".

If bitcoin is found to "be used as a currency" frequently enough, isn't it within the realm of possibility that the Blacks Law Dictionary could be updated to reflect that in common use bitcoin is "a currency".  Note that dictionaries do not permanently set the definitions of words against all future modification, but rather reflect and report the present common usage of words and their immediately accepted meanings.

[El]

As to your question on definitions changing, Case Law represents all previous ruling using just the very process you describe, point being, lawyers are using the Common Law , or common agreement of the identity of (bitcoin) if we all agree that currency NOW means something other than what it DID previously mean, there would have to be an Overruling of a previous definition...usually this does not happen often...in the case of Blacks Law being used  as the Authority, all Judges and Attourneys will refer both to the current legal authority for definition, AND Case Law.

I'm certain "digital currency" has been legally defined already.  It's probably different than "curreny"

Has anyone checked?

[DannyHamilton]

As to your question on definitions changing, Case Law represents all previous ruling using just the very process you describe, point being, lawyers are using the Common Law , or common agreement of the identity of (bitcoin) if we all agree that currency NOW means something other than what it DID previously mean, there would have to be an Overruling of a previous definition...usually this does not happen often...in the case of Blacks Law being used  as the Authority, all Judges and Attourneys will refer both to the current legal authority for definition, AND Case Law.

I'm certain "digital currency" has been legally defined already.  It's probably different than "curreny"

Has anyone checked?

Note that case law (in the U.S.) has already defined bitcoin as a "money".  It will be interesting to see how it handles the word "currency" in the future.

[El]

Do you have a link to the Case?

....what part of "govt" said it was money?  the FedRes?

[DannyHamilton]

Do you have a link to the Case?

....what part of "govt" said it was money?  the FedRes?

In 1946 the U.S. Supreme Court established the "Howey Test" to define a "Security".

According to the results of the case, one of the criteria of a "Security" is that it must be:

and investment of money

In 2013, a Federal Judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Amos L. Mazzant, in Texas (in the case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers and Bitcoin Savings and Trust,  CASE NO. 4:13-CV-416) in considering the "Howey Test" defense offered by Mr. Shavers in his attempt to have the case dismissed, declared that Bitcoin met the conditions of the "Howey Test".  As such, bitcoin appears at the moment to be considered by the U.S. Federal Judicial jurisdiction to be a "money":

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/06/us-court-sec-bitcoin-idUSBRE97517G20130806

Trendon Shavers of Bitcoin Savings & Trust had challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission's case against him, saying the regulator had no jurisdiction to sue him because the Bitcoin investments he offered are not securities or subject to any U.S. regulation.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Amos L. Mazzant in the Eastern District of Texas ruled on Tuesday that his Bitcoin investments "meet the definition of investment contract, and as such, are securities."

"It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money," the judge wrote. "It can be used to purchase goods or services."

[El]

yes copy that.   money=currency, ergo, currency = money.

except bitcoins arent issued. so does the logic fail?

[edutBTC]

Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money