How To Use Bitcoin – The Most Important Creation In The History Of Man

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prometheus said:
I am arguing that the term "real currency" as defined by FinCEN is identical to the term "currency" as defined by at least 4 different published dictionaries which I have consulted, as well as to the way that the term "currency" is used in common parlance.

I am also arguing that the term "virtual currency" as defined by FinCEN, does not coincide fully with any published definition of the term "currency" that I am aware of, nor with the way the term "currency" is used in common parlance.

I am still further arguing that this distinction is actually meaningful and not just semantic wordplay. That those features of "real currency" which are included within the common understanding of "currency" but are missing from Bitcoin and other "virtual currencies" are important to many people, including myself, and that this justifies my position.

I am yet still further arguing that bitcoin is perfectly well described as a "financial instrument", so there's no reason to hijack the common term "currency" which would leave me and many others forced to use FinCEN's "real currency" or some other term to mean what we've meant by "currency" all along.

I have no need to write to FinCEN. Given the scope of their mission, I am perfectly satisfied with their terminology as it stands.
Click to expand...
Your insistence that "currency" means "real currency - and nothing else" is just your pet interpretation of the word.

It is clear from the FinCEN regulation that they consider there to be a set of "currencies". That set can be divided into two subsets: "real currencies" and "virtual" currencies. The set of "virtual" currencies can be further divided into the subsets of "convertible" virtual currencies and "non convertible" currencies. All of these sets use the word, "currency". If FinCEN didn't have a classification system like this then they would not be able to apply currency regulations to bitcoin.

As for the "general acceptance" claim, that appears to come about because you conflated two separate meanings of the word, "currency". The non-monetary definition does talk about being "generally accepted" but it applies to a general idea rather than money itself. The Oxford Dictionary give the example of "the term gained wider currency after the turn of the century" while the Merriam-Webster dictionary give the example of "a story gaining currency".

Just to complicate matters, there is a third definition of currency which is "the quality of being current".
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Your insistence that "currency" means <<blah blAH BLAH>>.
Click to expand...

There is one implication of the formal definition of Bitcoin as a currency which actually matters a lot. If it was undefined, or if it was defined as a commodity, states could tax it. As a currency, they can't do that on sale or resale (like they can for gold or silver).

That's huge in implications.
 
psionl0 said:
Now you've done it! Guess what the next line of attack on bitcoin is going to be? :mad: ( ;) )
Click to expand...
It really makes no difference what "attacks on bitcoin" may be. What is important is to note and track actual usage patterns.

Historically, governments have always found the emergence of substitute currencies. Governments have attempted to keep their bad money in circulation as long as possible, and then, eventually, they too started using the new and popular currency that the people used. In rare cases (Weimer Republic, end of hyperinflation, 1923) the state successfully introduced the substitute currency and the people accepted it and it worked. In the vast majority of cases where a state introduced a new currency after destroying the value and respect for the old one, the new currency fails after a brief respite. (Bolivar Fuerte).

The bitcoin is a state independent, 'peoples money', which is likely to not go away. If repressed in one nation, it will be used in others, and covertly, where it is repressed. That's the nature of substitute currencies. In fact, the more totalitarian and harsher the state, the more use the people seem to have for substitute currencies and a black market.

Bitcoin is defined by FINCEN as a money, a currency - and people who trade in it are money traders. They are thus regulated by the Fed, and by the states. They must register with the state to operate within a state. This means that the state can't come up with it's own definitions. They have to handle the bitcoin traders exactly like traders of euros or renmanbi.

Which means no sales tax. Of course, if (For example) Greece defined in law the bitcoin as a taxable commodity, then for a legal exchange between the US and Greece, an individual would see that tax on the Greek end. But that would supplant or replace the VAT, so no particular reason to be concerned about it.

Yet another reason why arguments such as Prometheus's and Remoril miss the mark of relevance, meaning and understanding.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You are a bit late with that news.

But bitcoin isn't a currency. Prometheus says so. :D

BTW the real criminals are those who would force people to use banks.
Click to expand...

You keep missing the part where all I'm doing is quoting FinCEN or the dictionary. A bit of willful blindness, perhaps? ;)
 
psionl0 said:
Your insistence that "currency" means "real currency - and nothing else" is just your pet interpretation of the word.
Click to expand...

No. I have not insisted any such thing. I am choosing one of many valid definitions of the word, pointing out that that particular definition happens to be the most common usage among laypeople, and asserting that there is good reason to use that definition for the purpose at hand.ssssssssss

psionl0 said:
It is clear from the FinCEN regulation that they consider there to be a set of "currencies". That set can be divided into two subsets: "real currencies" and "virtual" currencies. The set of "virtual" currencies can be further divided into the subsets of "convertible" virtual currencies and "non convertible" currencies. All of these sets use the word, "currency". If FinCEN didn't have a classification system like this then they would not be able to apply currency regulations to bitcoin.
Click to expand...

Yes. That much is completely clear. It is also irrelevant to my argument.

psionl0 said:
As for the "general acceptance" claim, that appears to come about because you conflated two separate meanings of the word, "currency". The non-monetary definition does talk about being "generally accepted" but it applies to a general idea rather than money itself. The Oxford Dictionary give the example of "the term gained wider currency after the turn of the century" while the Merriam-Webster dictionary give the example of "a story gaining currency".
Click to expand...

No. You are correct that the second definition in Oxford uses the wording "generally accepted", while the first (monetary) definition in that particular dictionary happens to say "in general use" However, in order to be "in use" money must be "accepted" so the implied meaning of these two phrases, in this context, is identical.

psionl0 said:
Just to complicate matters, there is a third definition of currency which is "the quality of being current".
Click to expand...

It really doesn't complicate matters much at all, unless you're only into semantic word games.
 
psionl0 said:
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

There are more s's in my argument so I win.
Click to expand...

Now that's the strongest counter-argument you've presented yet. I suppose I'll back down now before you really clobber me.

psionl0 said:
There is a difference between "irrelevant" and "does not support".
Click to expand...

Yes, there is, but the distinction is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Is there some reason you don't want to reply with any substance at all?
 
On the money laundering angle...

(Reuters) said:
U.S. prosecutors have indicted the operators of digital currency exchange Liberty Reserve, accusing the Costa Rica-based company of helping criminals around the world launder more than $6 billion in illicit funds linked to everything from child pornography to software for hacking into banks.
Click to expand...

Just a step to the right (left?) of Bitcoin...
 
mhaze said:
The path to 43,000 posts laid clear.
Click to expand...

So, I've quoted your own source back at you proving you wrong and the you've got nothing but off-topic personal attacks. Wait...didn't you say a few posts ago that you weren't going to respond to me again? Wrong about that claim too, eh?
 
psionl0 said:
Only if the topic of this thread is your "argument".
Click to expand...

So, if the topic of this thread were my argument rather than Bitcoin, then discussion of what constitutes an off-topic post would be off topic, but since the topic of this thread is Bitcoin, talking about what is or isn't off topic is, in fact, on topic. Got it. No wonder you're confused.



psionl0 said:
Hmmm, shall we have a 100 post argument about what "substance" means?

NAH!
Click to expand...

Why not? That would be at least as likely to advance discussion of Bitcoin as any of your previous responses to me.
 
LSSBB said:
On the money laundering angle...



Just a step to the right (left?) of Bitcoin...
Click to expand...

Repeating my prior comment which covers this...

It really makes no difference what "attacks on bitcoin" may be. What is important is to note and track actual usage patterns.

Historically, governments have always found the emergence of substitute currencies. Governments have attempted to keep their bad money in circulation as long as possible, and then, eventually, they too started using the new and popular currency that the people used. In rare cases (Weimer Republic, end of hyperinflation, 1923) the state successfully introduced the substitute currency and the people accepted it and it worked. In the vast majority of cases where a state introduced a new currency after destroying the value and respect for the old one, the new currency fails after a brief respite. (Bolivar Fuerte).

The bitcoin is a state independent, 'peoples money', which is likely to not go away. If repressed in one nation, it will be used in others, and covertly, where it is repressed. That's the nature of substitute currencies. In fact, the more totalitarian and harsher the state, the more use the people seem to have for substitute currencies and a black market.​

It does seem that banks have to be USED for governments to track money laundering. Banks have to be NECESSARY.

Bitcoin does not require banks, excepting for the transfer of value between fiat currencies and the bitcoin. So it's a form of international cash. If there is no input or output to fiat currencies, there is no relation between bitcoin and banking.

If a hundred people were buying on the Internet direct to small suppliers in Asia with the bitcoin, and one was using the bitcoin to do some "bad thing" that involved international money transfer, where should the focus of governments be? A practical solution would not involve attempting to make all those transactions operate through traditional banks and credit cards.

Governments will adapt to the realities of electronic currencies, just as they adapted to other innovations - credit cards, wire transfers, ACH, paypal, etc.

Rather interesting FBI document which discusses Bitcoin and abuse of decentralized e-currency.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/Bitcoin-FBI.pdf
 
Last edited:
If they're asked to cease and desist something they're not doing, how can there be an impossible deadline for them to stop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom