The judge isn't saying Bitcoin
should be regulated as a currency, he's saying it
always was regulated, hence the validity of the SEC's case and the bogosity of Trendon Shavers' defence that "if it's not real money, it's not illegal". The SEC already knew that Bitcoin investments were subject to their regulation (they wouldn't have charged Shavers in the first place if they didn't), this court ruling merely
confirms that fact. The saner folks on this forum also already knew that, and have trying for ages to get it through everyone else's thick skulls that just because you use Bitcoin, that doesn't mean the laws regarding monetary transactions don't apply to you. Some people insist on learning the hard way.