US Banks are conducting a lottery under your interpretation of law. They receive interest as a prize for payment processing.
Incorrect. I agree that banks do receive interest as a fee or "prize" for payment processing. However, they do not randomly select who gets payment processing and who does not - there is no "chance" selection of customers. Everybody who submits a request for payment gets equal service. No element of "chance", no lottery.
The real argument is Consideration. In legal theory, "Consideration" does not apply since no one is purchasing from the one running this lottery.
Incorrect. Consideration is not about a "player" (mining) OBTAINING something of value from a "lottery runner" (Bitcoin). Consideration is about the "lottery runner" (Bitcoin) RECEIVING something of value from the "player" (miner) - namely, the addition of a block to the blockchain from a single miner that it designates as a ten-minute "winner".
Thank you for thinking this through instead of just insulting me. You will eventually conclude that legally I am right, as uncomfortable as that will be to admit.
You have to purchase something from the lottery runner, to participate in that lottery. That is what "Consideration" is.
It is under Contract Law. It is an agreement, or proof that you are participating in the lottery.
If you are now saying that when a miner makes an "addition of a block to the blockchain (from a single miner) that it designates (it) as a ten-minute "winner". and as a result, gains a "prize" from the network, then when did the miner pay the entrance fee into that lottery?
You are saying that as soon as the Miner "finds a block", its Consideration.
So, an unsuccessful Miner is mining, equals no lottery, since there is no consideration.
But when a Miner "finds a block", and gets a "prize", finding the block is the consideration?
So in theory, only the miner who finds the block is playing a lottery by himself, and pays himself.
Who is running this lottery?
The Miner is paying himself and playing by himself, in your legal interpretation. That can not be a lottery.