For those who have been following the story of my lawsuit against the NYDFS (Ben Lawsky); I am pushing for the definition of what Bitcoin (or the like is/are.)
And No, it's not a Currency or Money .... and what confuses people is the Satoshi paper's title "Electronic Cash System."
Writing an answer to the state of New York, the definition of Bitcoin needed to happen and it took a lot of soul searching.
Let make it clear; it's not because I am advocating that Bitcoin is not Money or a Currency that Bitcoin should not be adopted.
Bitcoin is a Commodity just like Oranges or Gold.
From all the studies I have done during the past 2 years (looking at the code and soul searching), I came to the simple conclusion that what makes a Currency or Money is the ability for its creator to defend it from abuse for its users and to decide whether or not it as value.
- For the US Dollars, the ability for the US to wage war against anyone in the world.
- For Starbucks, the ability for a Barista to refuse service to anyone that doesn't hand correct code.
An Orange or a bitcoin, will never cease to exist regardless of what its creator does/want, etc as long as it's user see a value in it regardless of the ability of the creator to defend or forbid it.
What make Bitcoin revolutionary is the fact that we (we as humanity not we as the man or the team behind Satochi) created a commodity from thin air and that it can be bartered as fast a currency; and divided as easy as currency.
When I read Marco Santori's blog on Coincenter, it pisses me off because the argument is right but they are tiptoeing around the reality of what bitcoin is. http://coincenter.or...-does-it-matter
Bitcoin is not Money .....
We'll see what a New York Judge says shortly.
Theo Chino, New York