Bitcoin is a currency as it'll get accepted in many places soon!
IMO i think bitcoin is already accepted everywhere what its just lacking is mainstream adoption to use it freely without the question of regulations. 
Topic: Is bitcoin an asset or a currency? - page 24. (Read 3628 times)
The treatment of bitcoin to be an asset or a currency depends on the user, I treat bitcoin to be both a currency and an asset....
Seems many people treat bitcoin like an asset given how much it's gone up over the last year or so. But some academics disagree with that assessment. If it is to be treated as a currency, it will need to stabilize to be of use.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/nyus-dean-of-valuation-says-bitcoin-is-a-currency.html
Actually bitcoin was born to build new digital currency ecosystem and not for digital investment.
But recently, bitcoin is more treated as investment asset. Its not surprising because the growing of bitcoin make bitcoin holder get their big profit.
In my opinion, it will depend on the person holding the bitcoin it can be asset and currency. Do heard or read the article of the 19 yrs. of bitcoin millionaire. Named Erick Finman to invest at an early age on the bitcoin. His mindset that bitcoin is an asset that helps him the future even deep down. If the person stored or stock the bitcoin in his or her wallet, we can say this is an asset. We can tell the currency can be used to buy stuff, paying bills. If the person converts bitcoin to another altcoin, it will remain an asset.
bitcoin as an assets, yes bitcoin is an assets since it is liquid and can easily be turned into cash. It is n assets since it can be an investment that can be trade since, bitcoin can be sold and you can also buy it.
Seems many people treat bitcoin like an asset given how much it's gone up over the last year or so. But some academics disagree with that assessment. If it is to be treated as a currency, it will need to stabilize to be of use.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/nyus-dean-of-valuation-says-bitcoin-is-a-currency.html
Bitcoin can be called currency and assets. Bitcoin becomes currency if used for transactions because basically bitcoin is crypto currency. Bitcoin has the potential to continue to increase and can last long, therefore bitcoin can be called an asset because its value continues to increase.
The American courts may be about to decide:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/can-bitcoin-be-regulated-u-s-courts-are-about-to-decide
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/can-bitcoin-be-regulated-u-s-courts-are-about-to-decide
Quote
The U.S. is trying to regulate cybercurrency offerings. It’s still unclear whether it has the authority to do so.
Federal judges in Brooklyn, New York, are about to rule on the question. In doing so, they could determine whether Bitcoin and other stateless currencies are securities that can be regulated like stocks or bonds. Courts across the country are likely to consult these rulings when considering other cybercurrency cases.
“If it’s not a security, then what is it?” said Peter Henning, a former SEC and Justice Department lawyer who is now a professor at Wayne State University Law School.
In what is believed to be the first criminal case focusing on an initial coin offering, Brooklyn businessman Maksim Zaslavskiy was charged in a case unsealed in November with promoting digital currencies backed by investments in real estate and diamonds that U.S. prosecutors said didn’t exist. The Securities and Exchange Commission also sued.
U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie said he’ll allow Zaslavskiy’s lawyers in both the criminal and civil cases to challenge whether ICOs can be considered a security under U.S. law. The government has until March 19 to file its argument that cybercurrency is a security.
“If the judge makes the determination that this is not a security, he’d dismiss the criminal case,” said Mildred Whalen, Zaslavskiy’s criminal-defense lawyer. “He recognizes this is a fundamental issue in both cases. It’s all completely new territory.”
Another judge in the Brooklyn federal courthouse is being asked to rule on how cryptocurrencies and ICOs should be treated under U.S. laws.
In that case, the SEC sued last month against Dominic Lacroix, whom it called a “recidivist securities law violator.” The SEC says his Canadian company marketed an ICO called PlexCoin to investors in the U.S. and abroad without registering with U.S. authorities or disclosing past misdeeds.
Lacroix, 35, and his 26-year-old partner Sabrina Paradis-Royer used Twitter, Facebook and blogs last year to raise about $15 million from thousands of investors, the SEC said. Investors in PlexCoin were told profits would be bolstered because the firm had almost 50 “market experts” working primarily in Singapore, who’d list the virtual currency on digital asset exchanges and push secondary market trading.
In reality, the SEC says, it was a scam. Only a handful of employees worked for Lacroix in Quebec, and he concealed his involvement in the company because he has a history of committing securities fraud in Canada. An asset freeze last month was a victory for the SEC’s Cyber Unit, stopping an ICO that promised investors a 13-fold profit in less than 29 days.
U.S. District Judge Carol Amon said she will first decide if the SEC has territorial jurisdiction sue before determining whether PlexCoin was a security. Lacroix is in custody in Quebec after a contempt ruling.
Jason Gottlieb, Lacroix’s U.S. lawyer, said in a letter to the judge that he would challenge the SEC’s contention that it has authority over the matter.
“It’s the Canadians who have unique jurisdiction here, and for reasons of international comity, I don’t think we should be mucking about in their process,” Gottlieb told the judge at a Jan. 9 hearing.
The SEC’s lawyers plan to file their response to Gottlieb’s argument in May. Ryan White, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment on Gottlieb’s claims.
Federal judges in Brooklyn, New York, are about to rule on the question. In doing so, they could determine whether Bitcoin and other stateless currencies are securities that can be regulated like stocks or bonds. Courts across the country are likely to consult these rulings when considering other cybercurrency cases.
“If it’s not a security, then what is it?” said Peter Henning, a former SEC and Justice Department lawyer who is now a professor at Wayne State University Law School.
In what is believed to be the first criminal case focusing on an initial coin offering, Brooklyn businessman Maksim Zaslavskiy was charged in a case unsealed in November with promoting digital currencies backed by investments in real estate and diamonds that U.S. prosecutors said didn’t exist. The Securities and Exchange Commission also sued.
U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie said he’ll allow Zaslavskiy’s lawyers in both the criminal and civil cases to challenge whether ICOs can be considered a security under U.S. law. The government has until March 19 to file its argument that cybercurrency is a security.
“If the judge makes the determination that this is not a security, he’d dismiss the criminal case,” said Mildred Whalen, Zaslavskiy’s criminal-defense lawyer. “He recognizes this is a fundamental issue in both cases. It’s all completely new territory.”
Another judge in the Brooklyn federal courthouse is being asked to rule on how cryptocurrencies and ICOs should be treated under U.S. laws.
In that case, the SEC sued last month against Dominic Lacroix, whom it called a “recidivist securities law violator.” The SEC says his Canadian company marketed an ICO called PlexCoin to investors in the U.S. and abroad without registering with U.S. authorities or disclosing past misdeeds.
Lacroix, 35, and his 26-year-old partner Sabrina Paradis-Royer used Twitter, Facebook and blogs last year to raise about $15 million from thousands of investors, the SEC said. Investors in PlexCoin were told profits would be bolstered because the firm had almost 50 “market experts” working primarily in Singapore, who’d list the virtual currency on digital asset exchanges and push secondary market trading.
In reality, the SEC says, it was a scam. Only a handful of employees worked for Lacroix in Quebec, and he concealed his involvement in the company because he has a history of committing securities fraud in Canada. An asset freeze last month was a victory for the SEC’s Cyber Unit, stopping an ICO that promised investors a 13-fold profit in less than 29 days.
U.S. District Judge Carol Amon said she will first decide if the SEC has territorial jurisdiction sue before determining whether PlexCoin was a security. Lacroix is in custody in Quebec after a contempt ruling.
Jason Gottlieb, Lacroix’s U.S. lawyer, said in a letter to the judge that he would challenge the SEC’s contention that it has authority over the matter.
“It’s the Canadians who have unique jurisdiction here, and for reasons of international comity, I don’t think we should be mucking about in their process,” Gottlieb told the judge at a Jan. 9 hearing.
The SEC’s lawyers plan to file their response to Gottlieb’s argument in May. Ryan White, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment on Gottlieb’s claims.
This is similar to a question that asks "is cash an asset or a currency". When you hold it with expectation of appreciation, it's more of an asset. If you use it to exchange for things you need, it is an currency. Simple like that.
that asset that I know of our ownership of the rights we get. with that asset already belongs to us, but the currency is quite different, if the money is enough we need for a medium of exchange is not for us to save such an important asset, such as land.
I think It is both. 
I don't know why the majority of the members here are arguing about classifying what Bitcoin is. Because if you own Bitcoin as a currency then it is classified as an asset, a liquid asset to be precise as anything you own that can be use to pay off something is classified as an asset. It doesn't matter whether it only exist virtually as it still has an intrinsic value to it.
bitcoin is a cryptocurrency man...so of course its a currency...but for now it also called an asset because you can use it for an investment and other things like trading
Bitcoin can be an asset for the future. because with bitcoin we can save for long term investment, such as investment in the form of gold, land, property, insurance, pension, and others.
Bitcoin is asset right now. Until we can use it for microtransactions and until I can't buy coffee with BTC, I call it asset! But when and if fees will go higher than now, I don't know how to name it!
I can say that there should be no which is which if bitcoin is an asset or a currency. Bitcoin in terms of asset, first of all what is asset, asset is something that you owns, you're property and maybe not all of here has bitcoin but if you have one in your account it will be consider yours. Bitcoin as an currency, currency is a system of money in general use in a particular country. We all know Bitcoin is a digital currency that only exist electronically so bitcoin is a system of money that we can use for transaction electronically.
when I have Bitcoin, I will keep it and will not be used as a tool to make transactions, because I think Bitcoin is a valuable asset.
and again in my country Bitcoin can not be used as a tool to make transactions..
and again in my country Bitcoin can not be used as a tool to make transactions..
In my opinion bitcoin is an asset that receive a high profit, bitcoins easily converted to cash. To become currency.
Bitcoin is both asset and currency but it is true that bitcoin is still not a legal currency in any part of the world. Also In some of the countries where bitcoin have got legal status as only asset and not as currency.
But many people are also using bitcoin just as currency to pay for their daily expenses wherever they will find merchants accepting bitcoin payments.
But many people are also using bitcoin just as currency to pay for their daily expenses wherever they will find merchants accepting bitcoin payments.
yeah for me it's both. we can say it is a currency because we can encahs it ang use it like currency. we can use it to buy things or use it to pay for our bills and support us financially. it can be also called an asst because we can use it as an investment, so if it is an investment we call call it as an asset. so for me both. but anyway either way, bitcoin us an opportunity for us to ean extra money.
I think bitcoin can only be an asset.
BTC because there still exist many problems, such as the transfer speed is slow, high transfer fees, block the problem such as congestion, then these problems led to the BTC is not suitable for as exists in the form of currency.
BTC because there still exist many problems, such as the transfer speed is slow, high transfer fees, block the problem such as congestion, then these problems led to the BTC is not suitable for as exists in the form of currency.
Bitcoin is an asset because many people are very much in formed about it.It us also a best way to have easy income.
for me bitcoin is a non currency asset. because if the currency, we can only save and the price will never change. but bitcoins have often changed prices. and if stored or invested we can get a big profit, because bitcoin has a fluctuating price movement.
It depends on your attitude to bitcoin and what strategy do you use, If you have several bitcoins and take money of rise valu (get interest) - it is an asset, if you just use bitcoin to buy anything - it is money
It just only my mind
It just only my mind
Jump to: