There are no cases involving bitcoin, so you couldn't use them in a brief.
Then how do you suppose the law is applied to new things/ideas?
Do you think that when the first cases were argued regarding telephones, that the attorneys and judges involved said "well, we've got no appellate caselaw about telephones, so there's no need for briefs, we'll just make some shit up"?
HINT: This is a question that can be answered with research.
ANOTHER HINT: The answer starts with "no, that's not what they did."
All you could do is make the plethora of arguments that I've made throughout this thread, and wait for the judge to agree with one of them.
You have not made arguments, you have reported on comments made by unidentified professors and lawyers and you have said that the correct outcome is "obvious". While taking a survey of people with training or experience may be a good way to predict future outcome(s), it is not a substitute for actual reasoning.
Perhaps that's all that
you can do right now, but you should not imagine that your limitations are universal.
I suspect that as your education continues, you will reach a point where you are capable of coming up with arguments about how and why existing legal doctrines can and should be extended (or not) to fit new situations or technologies.