FinCen Guidance FIN-2013-G001 (
http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) says:
In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
Three terms to legally define here: virtual currency, legal tender, and jurisdiction.
Let's dream that ONE sovereign state (internationally recognized as a country) makes bitcoin legal tender (perhaps even it's official currency). Then being legal tender in a jurisdiction, would it no longer fall under their "special" definition, but instead necessarily become "just a currency"?
I bet it would change the game. Here are my two questions:
Where do you think bitcoin is the most likely (i.e. less unlikely) to become legal tender?
And if we assume it will happens, in which time-frame would you guess it will?
I am asking those question in order to first establish some framework as a starting point, a framework to allow a better understanding of the current international situation and a tool to strengthen the bitcoin institution.
That being said, I would presume that "nowhere in the world" and "never in the history of mankind" are unlikely useful for this purpose, but for "freedom of speech" sake... you are the master of your keyboard.