What am I missing? And why does everyone seem to want Bitcoin to be a currency when it's far better off legally with an official definition in the realm of general commodity? (oil, cattle, tulip bulbs) No country in the world is going to be particularly receptive legally or otherwise to direct competition with their local Currency. (with a capital C)
Cheers.
Because that's where it is headed eventually (a currency) so I'd prefer that we (society) just concretely define it as a currency and then everyone knows where they stand and can build based on that.
Right now no one knows where Bitcoin stands, it could be a commodity, a currency, a meaningless play thing...? Once it is clearly defined then you can clearly work within that framework, without building a business and then finding out that the definition has changed on a whim and your business model is no longer viable.
It's not like it's not definable as a generic commodity. And you want it defined explicitly by the US Gov't as a Currency *why*? What are the benefits of that over the current definition?
So it's not a Currency... and per most accepted definitions it isn't one until it gets some official gov't backing somewhere... That's not a bad thing. Blindly marching toward a confrontation with the US Gov't because you want it to be a Currency (banknote, legal tender, physical coin) is only going to get you "Liberty Dollar'd". Unlike Pinocchio who so badly wanted to be a real boy, there's no fairy godmother guaranteeing Bitcoin it's happy ending.