Not exactly. While there is some "grey area" here, in the U.S. Bitcoin is considered by federal and state governments to be money in some circumstances, such as FinCEN registration requirements or California's law recognizing it as lawful money (but not legal tender, for those who don't know the difference) while in other circumstances, such as IRS tax requirements, it's considered property or an asset.

While I wouldn't take the risk of going into court with this argument without consulting with a competent attorney, I think my defense if I were to be brought into court for selling BTC without a license would include the fact that BTC is considered property by the IRS and that it is unclear to the government whether it is money, property or both. If it's not money, then you cannot be guilty of transmitting money without a license, it's simply your personal property that you are selling and absent some specific law making that illegal it's legal by default as long as you pay the appropriate taxes. If it is money, that defense doesn't hold water, but at least a court would have to decide one way or another and put an end to some of the confusion.


^ This.. we need more politicians from other parties (not just Libertarian, although that is my own political affiliation) in office in the U.S. The two-party system has failed to give us anything more than the illusion of choice while we continue voting for the "lesser of two evils" and continue having rights taken away by our elected "representatives" regardless of whether they have an "R" or a "D" next to their name.

Even more than this, we need judges in the courts who uphold the laws and the Constitution and refuse to allow the double-standards that the government benefits from when it brings someone before a court on criminal charges (such as Bitcoin being money when it suits the government and being property otherwise.. or hacking being a felony if you or I do it but perfectly ok if the FBI or NSA does it).