CFTC has recently ruled bitcoin as a digital commodity, and I think personally it has more value treated like so.
There is no true valuation of Bitcoin that prices it even at the price it is at right now. If it should function as a currency, there stands no reason why it should be dislocated so greatly from other currencies.
If a currency needs 'support' then its just being propped up at a price that nobody else really wants to pay.
I was reading again the comments made on this thread about my main posts here and found something interesting in the above comment (the part in bold) and wanted to put here as a comment a mine comment - made after the above comment - created as a my search of data and exact definitions regarding the above. I am putting it here all (as it was and as a comment to the new Satoshi Nakamoto from Australia - is missing only the one from Pakistan and my country) because there is no need to do corrections. It is another mine different point of view comparing to important people of Institutions (always taking as true that the comments of the posters who name their thoughts, words or decisions about this matter are as they write. Again it would be pleasure for me to read any kind of comment even about this interpretation as well as the one written in the main post. Exist a specific in the above post made by CoinBateman. it is spoken about "digital commodity" and I haven't found any definition in internet about this concept. Everything below has to do simply with the commodity as it is know this existence until today and for which exist even definitions. If everyone have more to tell about the digital one is invited to explain here all he want. I will be curios the know the new definitions of this new concept.
I have to make only question about this fact: It is not this classification in a unknown thing since today an way to regulate bitcoin but to not accept that is a currency for reasons that only CFTC know?
Until that probable comment enjoy to everyone (and again discuss who want):
I am giving below a previous my post which analyze such kind of definition given by Dr. Wright (alias Satoshi Nakamoto). I am curious to learn his opinion about my thoughts and interpretations, but not being me Gavin Andresen with who he had privileged partnership, this my hope can be archived. Who know if I will be ably to sleep tonight after this disillusion. Below is t my previous post (only it is replaced the name of the previous poster with the name of Dr. Wright):
But lets go to the facts. According to Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp :
1. A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade.
2. Any good exchanged during commerce, which includes goods traded on a commodity exchange.
So, according to Dr. Wright, we have a basic good that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. It is clear that bitcoin is a commodity because all the things bought with it are of the same type of it. All the computer bought at Dell with bitcoin, all the xBox bought at Microsoft with bitcoin and all the other things bought at internet with bitcoin (porn, movies, gambling etc.) are at the same type with bitcoin. Have its qualities (so with all of those can be bought everything), are an invention of a peer to peer technology and are all within internet (so don't exist out of it). More convincing arguments than the above Dr. Right cannot find.
Then, always according to Dr. Right, commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. Sure, Dr. Right learn to all us that bitcoin is used widely to produce all the above things bought by it. So bitcoin is used as input in the production of computers, xBox, in the producing of porn, movies, gambling etc. Who of us have not tasted a very good porn make and played from bitcoin itself. Another undeniable argumentation made by Dr. Right.
For me are enough those arguments to not go further. Who want to go forward can continue with the other arguments made from this brave, sure and deep cognitive of bitcoin.
Maybe needed to do ever one definition which fulfill the above argumentation of Dr. Right and without which can be created some doubt about everything written above. What is the meaning of good.
According to Wikipedia https://en.hwikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics):
In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'goods' that are tangible property (also called goods) and services, which are non-physical.
Then always according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property :
Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or movable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.
The big Dr. Right tell in this case only one important thing which is a devastating argument in support of its inspiring theory: bitcoin is a good (commodities) which is a tangible property: so which can be touched (as it is written in the above definitions). Who of us have not touched with his hands the beautiful coin (commodity) named BITCOIN.