People with power and monopoly rights to the use of force don't just throw their hands up and say "you got me, I give up" when people find a loophole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff
Topic: I disagree that Bitcoin is money, currency. (Read 7315 times)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff
@ 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?
@ 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?
Egold was a company and had servers.
cur·ren·cy
Noun
1.A system of money in general use in a particular country.
2.The fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.
#2 applies to almost anything. For instance, the number of coins under your name in this forum is "currency" because some people use it to evaluate posts.
Noun
1.A system of money in general use in a particular country.
2.The fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.
#2 applies to almost anything. For instance, the number of coins under your name in this forum is "currency" because some people use it to evaluate posts.
This is the Legal subforum not the Economics or Dictionary subforum.
When attempting to define money, currency or funds then authoritative sources would be Constitutions, Statutes, court decisions, etc. for determining the rule or definition.
Of course it isn't money, why would you need to make a topic to argue that lol.
In the figurative sense it is money but technically it is just a reincarnation of the dollar. It is USD/Euros etc, just in a different form but ultimately the only purpose of it is to be converted back to dollars.
Multiple independent currencies cannot exist in the same economic system, they have to be based on each other. This means that x currency has to be worth 5 of y currency, and vice versa, but at that point in time you might as well just stick to the most used one, being dollars.
In the figurative sense it is money but technically it is just a reincarnation of the dollar. It is USD/Euros etc, just in a different form but ultimately the only purpose of it is to be converted back to dollars.
Multiple independent currencies cannot exist in the same economic system, they have to be based on each other. This means that x currency has to be worth 5 of y currency, and vice versa, but at that point in time you might as well just stick to the most used one, being dollars.
everything else (that is not legal tender) is just an alternative currency.
So, then you admit that Bitcoin qualifies as currency under this definition?
What happened to gopher? I was waiting for his response to this question.
In the meantime I am suggesting that XBT should be the ISO currency code for Bitcoin...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1570253
Oxford English Dictionary definition of "money"
noun
A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively:I counted the money before putting it in my wallet; he borrowed money to modernize the store
Definition of coin
noun
a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money
Definition of banknote
noun
a piece of paper money, constituting a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum to the bearer on demand: a £100 banknote
Is Bitcoin a medium of exchange? True
Is Bitcoin in the form of a flat disc or piece of metal? False
Is Bitcoin a central banks promissory note on paper? False
= Therefore, is Bitcoin money? No.
However:
-By the above definition, a medium of exchange that is only coins or only banknotes is not money. Therefore the currency of Laos is not money - they have no coins.
-Does the definition "a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum" even make sense? No. A promise to pay you what you already have is a circular reference.
-By the above definition, a bank account does not contain money - computer balances transferred from other computer balances are not coins or paper. However, the below definition states that a bank account does contain money:
Definition of bank balance
noun
the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment
Since the definition of money, in the most authoritative work defining word meanings in the English language, does not correlate with even the simplest concepts and usage of money today, and is in contradiction with itself, we must therefore extrapolate that the definition of money can expand to new mediums of exchange beyond coin or paper or that issued by a central bank, to anything that shares the collective concepts associated with money.
noun
A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively:I counted the money before putting it in my wallet; he borrowed money to modernize the store
- (moneys or monies) formal sums of money:a statement of all moneys paid into and out of the account
- the assets, property, and resources owned by someone or something; wealth:the college is very short of money
- financial gain:the main aim of a commercial organization is to make money
- payment for work; wages:she accepted the job at the public school since the money was better
- a wealthy person or group:her aunt had married money
Definition of coin
noun
a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money
Definition of banknote
noun
a piece of paper money, constituting a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum to the bearer on demand: a £100 banknote
Is Bitcoin a medium of exchange? True
Is Bitcoin in the form of a flat disc or piece of metal? False
Is Bitcoin a central banks promissory note on paper? False
= Therefore, is Bitcoin money? No.
However:
-By the above definition, a medium of exchange that is only coins or only banknotes is not money. Therefore the currency of Laos is not money - they have no coins.
-Does the definition "a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum" even make sense? No. A promise to pay you what you already have is a circular reference.
-By the above definition, a bank account does not contain money - computer balances transferred from other computer balances are not coins or paper. However, the below definition states that a bank account does contain money:
Definition of bank balance
noun
the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment
Since the definition of money, in the most authoritative work defining word meanings in the English language, does not correlate with even the simplest concepts and usage of money today, and is in contradiction with itself, we must therefore extrapolate that the definition of money can expand to new mediums of exchange beyond coin or paper or that issued by a central bank, to anything that shares the collective concepts associated with money.
Close but:
What determines the worth of the coin or bank note? For paper it's the Number written on it and the anti-counterfeiting measures to insure it genuine. The coins or paper are backed by trust.
May I point you to: Casascius BTC Coins, it's a coin but the substance of the coin is meaningless as is the paper or copper,zinc,nickel, etc... on other fiat coins (except the gold and silver ones).
Splitting hairs in a pedantic realm is good for lawyers tho...
I think Bitcoin would be considered a currency. It will never be considered legal tender in the U.S. but I could see it being used as Legal Tender in a smaller country that is fed up with its devalued currency. (possible yes, probable - not so sure)
Even though Bitcoin may be a currency it has has not been officially recognized as such. There is a lot of definitional issues and general education that needs to be addressed for more widespread Bitcoin acceptance
that's my .00064 btc worth (at the current exchange rate)
Even though Bitcoin may be a currency it has has not been officially recognized as such. There is a lot of definitional issues and general education that needs to be addressed for more widespread Bitcoin acceptance
that's my .00064 btc worth (at the current exchange rate)
everything else (that is not legal tender) is just an alternative currency.
So, then you admit that Bitcoin qualifies as currency under this definition?
People with power and monopoly rights to the use of force don't just throw their hands up and say "you got me, I give up" when people find a loophole.
Ain't that the truth!
People with power and monopoly rights to the use of force don't just throw their hands up and say "you got me, I give up" when people find a loophole.
Quote
As a matter of courtesy I gave one of the posters a popular link where the term legal tender is defined. I suggest you go back, find it, click on that link, see if it makes sense to you. You may even find a bit of information that legal tender refers to any tender that is legal somewhere, not only in one's particular choice of residence, so EU, USD and even (believe it or not) FKP is legal tender, as all these has been issued by a government. Those respective government refer to their own issue (legal tender) as local currency and to all other, foreign government issue (again legal tender) as foreign currency.
You can have your own opinion, you can have your own attitude but you can't have your own facts.
The quoted segment is 100% false. Tell you what find a lawyer willing to put that in a legal opinion on the law firms letterhead and I will pay you 200% of the legal cost. Easy way to double your money.
In the United State the EUR or FKP is absolutely NOT legal tender. Not ifs, ands or buts. It is a cornerstone of US contract law and jurisprudence. If I owe you a debt of 100 Euros you MUST (if the contract is established under US law) accept US dollars as payment. Period. It doesn't matter if you prefer Euros (or Gold or Bitcoins) over Dollars. As a creditor you are obligated to accept US dollars "for all debts public and private". That is the very definition of legal tender. An obligation to for a creditor to accept legal tender for debts. Taxes are debts. The IRS considers a taxed owed the instant the obligation is created not when a return is filed. As such the IRS is obligated to accept dollars but not required to accept any other currency which isn't legal tender. If Euro or Yen were legal tender in the US the IRS would be obligated under the US code (just like any other creditor) to allow taxpayers to pay taxes due in foreign currency.
Since creditors must accept repayment in legal tender in the hypothetical debt above even if you sued me for nonpayment, and proved to the court I am indebted to you for 100 Euros (or ounces of gold, or Ferraris, or even Bitcoins), under no circumstances will a US court issue a judgement for 100 Euros. US judgements are ALWAYS in legal tender and in the US (and thus US courts) that is US money and US money only (Federal Reserve notes and previously issued notes). If the court finds that you have proven the claim, they will attempt to award damages in US dollars for the damages you suffered. In this hypothetical example most likely this would be 100 Euros (plus any late fees or other damages as allowed by contract law) * EUR/USD exchange rate.
The fact that you are willing to lie, make up facts, and engage in FUD to prove your dubious point shows you aren't interested in facts, just trying to push an agenda, so I won't see any responses. It isn't worth the time.
For anyone else who values facts of FUD and falsehoods:
In recent news Panama is considering modifying its statutes to make the EUR (in addition to the USD) legal tender. If all foreign currencies are legal tender then obviously this debate wouldn't even exist. The reality is that under Panamanian law the USD is currently legal tender and EUR is not. Panama is considering amending that legislation. If it passes a debtor could settle a debt using EITHER USD or EUR and Panamanian courts could issue judgements in either currency as both would be legal tender.
http://www.euronews.com/2012/10/15/panama-wants-the-euro-as-legal-tender/
As a historical note, in the US, prior to 1857 gold & silver foreign coins (but not paper notes) were legal tender due to insufficient circulating US money. The coinage act of 1857 changed that and it has never been repealed by future legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1857
Also a nice laymans tutorial on the concept of legal tender and what it isn't.
Quote
Then a medium-of-exchange is denoted as legal tender, that means that it must be accepted in the discharge of certain types of debt. If you are engaged in an exchange with someone that doesn't involve the settling of debts, then legal tender laws don't apply. For example, say you walk into a corner store and offer to pay for cigarettes using legal tender platinum coins. The store owner can legally refuse to accept the coins. After all, the two of you are not settling debts—you're engaging in a spot transaction. The owner is on the right side of the law in requiring payment in, say, peanuts. Either pay him in peanuts or walk out of the store without your smokes.
What qualifies as legal tender? In the US this includes all United States coins and currency, as well as Federal Reserve notes. In Canada, coins produced by the Royal Mint and notes issued by the Bank of Canada are legal tender (see the Currency Act). Private bank deposits are not legal tender in the US or Canada, nor are traveler's cheques or credit cards. Creditors needn't accept cheques or credit cards.
http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2013/01/legal-tender-101.htmlWhat qualifies as legal tender? In the US this includes all United States coins and currency, as well as Federal Reserve notes. In Canada, coins produced by the Royal Mint and notes issued by the Bank of Canada are legal tender (see the Currency Act). Private bank deposits are not legal tender in the US or Canada, nor are traveler's cheques or credit cards. Creditors needn't accept cheques or credit cards.
Of course one could also ask the Treasury Dept
Quote
Legal Tender Status
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx
Note no mention of United States money AND all all other foreign money, just United States money. Notice that credit cards, checks and money orders are not legal tender. Legal tender has an exact and specific meaning. All currency is not money. All money is not legal tender. Legal tender is both money and currency.
Bitcoin isn't even recognized as a currency by current US law (although that probably will change). Even if Bitcoin is a currency it probably wouldn't be considered money in any locale. Regardless of if it is a currency and/or money it won't be legal tender unless a nation passes laws explicitly making it legal tender.
Oxford English Dictionary definition of "money"
noun
A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively:I counted the money before putting it in my wallet; he borrowed money to modernize the store
Definition of coin
noun
a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money
Definition of banknote
noun
a piece of paper money, constituting a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum to the bearer on demand: a £100 banknote
Is Bitcoin a medium of exchange? True
Is Bitcoin in the form of a flat disc or piece of metal? False
Is Bitcoin a central bank's promissory note on paper? False
= Therefore, is Bitcoin money? No.
However:
-By the above definition, a medium of exchange that is only coins or only banknotes is not money. Therefore the currency of Laos is not money - they have no coins.
-Does the definition "a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum" even make sense? No. A promise to pay you what you already have is a circular reference.
-By the above definition, a bank account does not contain money - computer balances transferred from other computer balances are not coins or paper. However, the below definition states that a bank account does contain money:
Definition of bank balance
noun
the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment
Since the definition of money, in the most authoritative work defining word meanings in the English language, does not correlate with even the simplest concepts and usage of money today, and is in contradiction with itself, we must therefore extrapolate that the definition of money can expand to new mediums of exchange beyond coin or paper or that issued by a central bank, to anything that shares the collective concepts associated with money.
noun
A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively:I counted the money before putting it in my wallet; he borrowed money to modernize the store
- (moneys or monies) formal sums of money:a statement of all moneys paid into and out of the account
- the assets, property, and resources owned by someone or something; wealth:the college is very short of money
- financial gain:the main aim of a commercial organization is to make money
- payment for work; wages:she accepted the job at the public school since the money was better
- a wealthy person or group:her aunt had married money
Definition of coin
noun
a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money
Definition of banknote
noun
a piece of paper money, constituting a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum to the bearer on demand: a £100 banknote
Is Bitcoin a medium of exchange? True
Is Bitcoin in the form of a flat disc or piece of metal? False
Is Bitcoin a central bank's promissory note on paper? False
= Therefore, is Bitcoin money? No.
However:
-By the above definition, a medium of exchange that is only coins or only banknotes is not money. Therefore the currency of Laos is not money - they have no coins.
-Does the definition "a central bank’s promissory note to pay a stated sum" even make sense? No. A promise to pay you what you already have is a circular reference.
-By the above definition, a bank account does not contain money - computer balances transferred from other computer balances are not coins or paper. However, the below definition states that a bank account does contain money:
Definition of bank balance
noun
the amount of money held in a bank account at a given moment
Since the definition of money, in the most authoritative work defining word meanings in the English language, does not correlate with even the simplest concepts and usage of money today, and is in contradiction with itself, we must therefore extrapolate that the definition of money can expand to new mediums of exchange beyond coin or paper or that issued by a central bank, to anything that shares the collective concepts associated with money.
Quote
Irrespective of the wishful thinking that the Banks should accept Bitcoin, it is only that, a wishful thinking, as any financial institution is prevented by law to use alternative to the legal tender currencies.
False, once again you have no understanding of what the term "legal tender" means. In the US the EUR is NOT legal tender so therefore financial institutions are prohibited from being involved in transactions involving EUR, right? In the US there is only one legal tender, the federal reserve note (and no longer issued US notes).
Quote
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103This is why for example every Forex exchange, foreign fund wire service, or remittance service is illegal. Oh wait... they aren't.
That is because no such restriction on "legal tender" exists for financial institutions.
Once again currency =/= legal tender.
Bitcoin can be a currency and not be legal tender, much like in the US foreign currencies are still currencies but they are not legal tender. Likewise the US dollar is still a currency outside of the US but for most parts of the world it is not legal tender (a few foreign countries also have made the US dollar legal tender).
As a matter of courtesy I gave one of the posters a popular link where the term legal tender is defined. I suggest you go back, find it, click on that link, see if it makes sense to you. You may even find a bit of information that legal tender refers to any tender that is legal somewhere, not only in one's particular choice of residence, so EU, USD and even (believe it or not) FKP is legal tender, as all these has been issued by a government. Those respective government refer to their own issue (legal tender) as local currency and to all other, foreign government issue (again legal tender) as foreign currency.
To all governments, everything else (that is not legal tender) is just an alternative currency. And they treat it as such.
But I couldn't care less if you decide not to follow my suggestion to educate yourself, it seems to me that you've already made your mind, and I am definitely not interested in changing it.
@ benjamindees:
Aw, do you care to point me in the right direction, perhaps provide a link where a good, popular definition contradicts what I have stated?
I will really appreciate it.
gopher, you don't seem to understand any of the words you are using. It sounds like you have been given some poor legal advice, and are getting carried away with it.
If you'd like to have a serious discussion, please start by defining each of these terms: currency, money, and legal tender. Then start citing laws, from your country or otherwise, that substantiate your claims that Bitcoin is illegal.
If you'd like to have a serious discussion, please start by defining each of these terms: currency, money, and legal tender. Then start citing laws, from your country or otherwise, that substantiate your claims that Bitcoin is illegal.
Quote
Irrespective of the wishful thinking that the Banks should accept Bitcoin, it is only that, a wishful thinking, as any financial institution is prevented by law to use alternative to the legal tender currencies.
False, once again you have no understanding of what the term "legal tender" means. In the US the EUR is NOT legal tender so therefore financial institutions are prohibited from being involved in transactions involving EUR, right? In the US there is only one legal tender, the federal reserve note (and no longer issued US notes).
Quote
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103This is why for example every Forex exchange, foreign fund wire service, or remittance service is illegal. Oh wait... they aren't.
That is because no such restriction on "legal tender" exists for financial institutions.
Once again currency =/= legal tender.
Bitcoin can be a currency and not be legal tender, much like in the US foreign currencies are still currencies but they are not legal tender. Likewise the US dollar is still a currency outside of the US but for most parts of the world it is not legal tender (a few foreign countries also have made the US dollar legal tender).
I agree with you.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
I am going to repeat DeathAndTaxes because he makes an unanswerably powerful point:
MSB regulations in the US for example use the term "currency substitute". Even if one went through the totally dubious effort to redefine bitcoin as "something else" with the stroke of a single regulator pen they could
I mostly disagree with what DeathAndTaxes wrote in this tread, it is either poorly or not at all substantiated; or it is not applicable to my motion - go and read the tread from the beginning, I refer to the reasonable and logical replies, then make a relevant comment, I will appreciate it.
@ marcus_of_augustus:
The reason I believe the Bitcoin needs redefining is to get some traction in being adopted by the regulated markets (i.e. financial institutions, government departments, etc); and when it comes to value exchange and trading, these markets are major players in contributing to any GDP, so no one should ignore them.
Irrespective of the wishful thinking that the Banks should accept Bitcoin, it is only that, a wishful thinking, as any financial institution is prevented by law to use alternative to the legal tender currencies.
Hence, if we keep Bitcoin defined as a currency (which I believe it is not) we will never gain the acceptance of the broader markets, Bitcoin will always remain a niche player it is now. And yes, $250M or even $1Bn market cap is a niche player.
The irony of all this is, as I wrote earlier, if the majority of the Bitcoin community is happy to play with a niche product, it will stay as such, and there is nothing the minority can do about it.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that bitcoin needs to be defined at all ... right now it is just "bitcoin".
The technology is still evolving, and rapidly also, already it is capable of doing things completely unlike any simple "resource". In the far future, "bitcoin" could be a whole concept definition basis of its own, for example, do you think people defined what a "wheel" was before it was invented, refined, matured as a technology? By defining, it you are trying to put a highly complex, multiply-connected surface in to a simple closed box ... and it just doesn't work.
Leave it be, it needs no definition to be a palpable reality and it grates on many levels to attempt to do so. Somethings just cannot be defined, labelled, controlled, enforced, as much as you wish them to be.
The technology is still evolving, and rapidly also, already it is capable of doing things completely unlike any simple "resource". In the far future, "bitcoin" could be a whole concept definition basis of its own, for example, do you think people defined what a "wheel" was before it was invented, refined, matured as a technology? By defining, it you are trying to put a highly complex, multiply-connected surface in to a simple closed box ... and it just doesn't work.
Leave it be, it needs no definition to be a palpable reality and it grates on many levels to attempt to do so. Somethings just cannot be defined, labelled, controlled, enforced, as much as you wish them to be.
I agree with you.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
I am going to repeat DeathAndTaxes because he makes an unanswerably powerful point:
MSB regulations in the US for example use the term "currency substitute". Even if one went through the totally dubious effort to redefine bitcoin as "something else" with the stroke of a single regulator pen they could
I agree with you.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
I have been thinking about the wrong timing of trying to change the definition too.
Then my mind drifted onto the alternative course - instead of changing definition (may be impossible to implement even in the long term), would it not be easier to start a fork that keeps all the vital parameters of Bitcoin intact, allow merged mining with it (similar to NMC), then execute new PR campaign with new set of definitions.
That way, the new fork can develop on its own unique way, get mined and traded separately, but more importantly, will get to be seen in a different, hopefully favourable light by the broader population, good enough to convince them to look at it and use it.
The more I look into bitcoin, the more I realise it is going to be the crypto currency that pushes the barriers, but will also most likely die in the process - think of it like napster for digital money.
However, thinking that now is the time to set the definitions is wrong. That comes far later, and to be honest, it is not the early adopter who gets to make that decision. That happens when your local political representative starts talking about it with other non technical people. Their understanding will come from other mainstream users who will talk about it as money - so that definition of it as currency will be implied, and that is good enough for law makers.
To see this in action, just think of the way that so many definitions have been created thanks to the mainstream taking ownership of the internet. We had it with the lawful status of email, the introduction and lawful usage of a digital signature. Another example is the way that the data protection laws are manipulated by organisations to their own agendas etc.
We are living in interesting times!
However, thinking that now is the time to set the definitions is wrong. That comes far later, and to be honest, it is not the early adopter who gets to make that decision. That happens when your local political representative starts talking about it with other non technical people. Their understanding will come from other mainstream users who will talk about it as money - so that definition of it as currency will be implied, and that is good enough for law makers.
To see this in action, just think of the way that so many definitions have been created thanks to the mainstream taking ownership of the internet. We had it with the lawful status of email, the introduction and lawful usage of a digital signature. Another example is the way that the data protection laws are manipulated by organisations to their own agendas etc.
We are living in interesting times!
Jump to: