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)
What you want, or I want, or even the Bitcoin Foundation wants is utterly irrelivent. You can call Bitcoin anything you want but governments around the world aren't that stupid. If it "acts like a currency" and is "used like a currency" and has "currency like properties" what do you think THEY are going to classify it as.
I mean it would be like saying this Marijuana. Take "bath salts" as an example. It wasn't marketed as a drug, wasn't sold as a drug, it didn't provide instructions on how to use it as a drug however people started using it like a drug and what did various governments classify it as? A controlled substance or a household product?
The only way xCoin doesn't get classified as a currency by various governments is if it lacks the properties of currency. So something which isn't fungible, liquid, accepted as a medium or exchange, and doesn't store value probably won't be classified as a currency, then again why would you want to use that?
Generalizations like "acts/used/properties like a currency" can apply to any commodity. What does not apply to any commodity are the things that make a currency a Currency. Per the Australian legal system, that'd be
. Per most legal definitions I've come across, (synonym: banknote) that'd be a government's central bank.
So yeah, it's most certainly lacking what many would consider key properties of Currency.