well spoken, sir.

you really got me, I was _this_ close to quoting "The Creature from Jekyll Island" once again before reading on .

On the matter: Bitcoin doesn't really need credibility, because it's "advertising" doesn't tell you anything that can't be fact-checked. Now of course there's the problem that average Joe can't read the sourcecode and/or as I've come to believe: understand the basics of the system.

I'm not sure the ECB-authors have dug in deep enough to have the bitcoin-aha-effect.

That's why it's possible that people actually think we might be telling them lies: our facts are complicated. And, well, to be honest: "It's very very very astronomically unlikely that someone accidentally finds the same key" is a shitty fact to tell someone in a conversation that tries to assure him his money is safe, no matter how many "very"s you put there! Even if you tell them something like: "It's like rolling 100 dice and they all come up '6'", they'll still think it could happen at some point because, well: they've seen 5 dice come up '6' and that's only 20 times more and there's a lot of time in the future and people generating addresses.

The analysis we're talking about here can help a lot because it's understandable and doesn't feature any of the technical details. It's really a good introduction to bitcoin. I especially like that libertarian austrian economics in-a-nutshell "grey box".

I am afraid I have to stand by what I said: the distinction is NOT along the "virtual" line as bankers would like to make people believe but along the centralized vs decentralized divide.
Bitcoin is a decentralized P2P currency while the Euro belongs to the same "centralized" category as Linden Dollars, Frequent Flyer Miles or Facebook credits.
The word "virtual" is meant to hide the fact that central currencies are backed just by the people using them, like any other currency.

So then the operative word for bitcoin must be "decentralized" currency.

Thanks!

again  PLEASE design your terms. 

Is legal tender a "law" enacted by congress or parliament or is it a "regulation" defined by a Federal/National Government Agency or is it a "ruling" or "interpretation" defined by a high court.

I found it...


...but I think it's wrong. Off by many orders of magnitude in fact. Hopping over to that thread.

When odds are that unlikely, just say it's impossible.  Seriously.

i think half of the posters did not read the full article and are trying to grasp how to legally classify bitcoins compared to digital version of fiat so here goes...


if the value in digital form represents the same numeric value (minus commissions/fee's) as the FIAT payment made to obtain it, and also the digital balance uses the FIAT symbols £ $ Euro etc then this is called 'E-Money' which is regulated by financial institutions. EG paypal, moneygram, online bank account balance
if the digital numeric balance has no obvious comparison to the FIAT amount paid and does not use FIAT symbols this is called virtual currency.  which is not regulated by financial institutions. EG 23Bunny points for $1 or 1BTC  for $11

e-Money regulated. Virtual currency not regulated. they are separate classifications and not the same thing.

the virtual currencies are then divided into sub categories depending on their use and impact to real world markets
type 1 (least impact) where you can purchase points but not redeem them back for FIAT. EG facebook credits, microsoft points.
type 2 where virtual currencies can be traded back and forth for FIAT
type 3 like type 2 but also used as means of trading real life products and wages.

if you skip down to chapter 4 of the PDF :THE RELEVANCE OF VIRTUAL CURRENCY SCHEMES FOR CENTRAL BANKS it has a few things to note about it.

regulations do not affect the bitcoin community by controlling what you do with coins to purchase products. so if you buy gold. you are 100% free of income taxes (but the sellers value stil incorporates sales tax if they are a legitimate business that requires sales tax in that country).

BUT if you want FIAT for your BTC then regulations do come into play once a fiat request happens or when fiat exchanges hands. which is where MTGOX, Bitinstant have to be regulated. but the guy selling alpaka socks for BTC does not have to be regulated.

they cannot find enough evidence that it is a ponzi scheme due to the fact that there is not one single entity in control of it to in human terms. close the doors and run off with all the FIAT equivelent of all the coins.

but they can class it as high risk due to the monopoly where there is a lack of multiple main payment gateways in and out. basically bitinstant mtgox holding the largest value exchange with a few dozon very small in comparison exchanges.

that due to this if a majority stake was to cash out it would easily destabilise the market.

EG the 5 people with other 300k BTC could take a huge portion of the FIAT market capital. as noted by the summer 2011 events that made BTC shrink to only a few cents

There shouldn't be any ambiguity. "Legal tender" means a lawful medium of payment. "Legal tender laws" (or "Legal tender" laws) are statutes that define what is legal tender.

A "regulation" is a legal provision that constrains a right (legal provisions which duplicate natural rights are merely redundant and not worthy of discussion). "Legal tender" laws constrain an individuals right to enter into private contracts with other consenting parties using the currency of their choice. Furthermore they give governments license to shirk the one useful function that they can legitimately be said to have, enforcing private contracts. For example, not recognizing gold clauses in contracts.

Only if you pee just 9 times in your life.

Better say something like: "it's nearly the same as winning the lottery 6 times! 6 times!!"