Quote :

"as for "bitcoin isn't money". it is. it is a medium of exchange. which is the definition of "money". to which you will bitch that it isn't a physical medium. and to which I will note that nowhere does the definition require it to be a physical medium. Linden dollars are very much a type of money, but they aren't a physical medium."

that makes it a currency, money is adopted by govt. per the UCC (which governs these definitions)

9/18/2011 10:17:20 AM

The UCC isn't Federal law, and the Federal government determines what is money, so plz find a different source of authority kthx

9/18/2011 10:51:06 AM

a dollar is the standard unit of giving value to money in the US (and would otherwise be a piece of paper). money is only authorized by the govt. authorized currency is money. starting your own currency is fine, starting your own money is not even possible (at least in this day and age, it has to be accepted for all reasons automatically)

we stated the same definition so im not sure why you're fighting it

[Edited on September 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM. Reason : f]

9/18/2011 11:39:20 AM

Come on, burro, one more post and I win the pool!

9/18/2011 11:48:36 AM

Quote :

"that makes it a currency, money is adopted by govt. per the UCC (which governs these definitions)"

no, legal tender is adopted by the gov't.

Quote :

"and the Federal government determines what is money"

no, people, themselves, determine what they will accept as money.

Quote :

"money is only authorized by the govt. authorized currency is money."

you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. where is any of that stated in any definition of the word "money". right. it's not.

Quote :

"starting your own currency is fine"

unfortunately for you, a "currency" is defined as a "system of money." So make up your mind, dude.

[Edited on September 18, 2011 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2011 2:42:25 PM

good luck with your definitions in court, i assure you they will go with the UCC and Constitutional context over Oxford's

9/18/2011 5:10:34 PM

the Constitution has a definition of money in it? well color me shocked.

thankfully, this isn't court. this is real life, where people know what money and currency are. but, keep playing semantics, dude. tell me, what is the legal definition of the word "is" so we can be sure we argue on the same grounds

[Edited on September 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2011 5:32:20 PM

Bitcoin is not yet a standard of deferred payment; debts are not yet payable in bitcoin.

BTW I just searched around the US Code (the compilation of permanent US Federal law) for a definition of "money" but it doesn't seem give that term a precise meaning; the CFR (the compilation of regulations that implement the US Code) looks like an even harder slog.

9/18/2011 6:10:24 PM

ironic that i said Constitutional context (that congress has the ability to coin money and regulate it's value)

ONLY congress has those abilities, not the states nor the people - so i guess if you want to argue that bitcoin is money then they should be able to regulate it's value - that's certainly not my argument as it's only a digital currency

i'd also love to hear what currency other than the dollar you feel the govt regulates the value of...

9/18/2011 7:33:18 PM

a primer on creating your own currency

9/18/2011 7:49:55 PM

oh yeah i forgot when Sarah Palin tried to have that Senator assasinated

9/18/2011 8:51:05 PM

Quote :

"i'd also love to hear what currency other than the dollar you feel the govt regulates the value of..."

how in the fuck would the government even have standing to regulate the value of any money it doesn't specifically create or control? Does the US government regulate the value of the Yen? What about the Euro?

Quote :

"ONLY congress has those abilities, not the states nor the people"

negative. the Constitution does not give the federal government the exclusive power to create money. It does deny that ability to the states, but it most certainly does NOT deny that power to the people.

9/19/2011 5:22:22 PM

you are in serious need of a BASIC constitutional history class. all enumerated powers are expressly given to the federal govt unless specified otherwise and if the power itself is not enumerated it is reserved to the states or the people. so i say again Congress is the only one with authority to coin money or regulate its value.
for your second ridiculous question, i'll just say that NO govt controls what another govt in another country regulates so they might be money in their respective countries but they're just currency here and aren't able to satisfy US debts and obligations. you can use the exchange to turn them into money (ie dollars)

it most certainly does deny that power to the people. you have yet to name another form of money in the US, something other than the dollar or coinage that you could use to satisfy any and every debt and obligation. you walk into a store and they accept it as payment no questions asked.

just name one and i'll shut up and crown you the superior mind.

9/19/2011 7:22:29 PM

I choose to post on this public forum because it is public, and because I believe I have something to contribute. If I wanted to chat with you in private, I'd register and hit you up on your OkCupid account.

9/19/2011 11:39:33 PM

9/20/2011 10:00:28 AM

I was 2 days away from posting that the price was relatively stable around $5 for the entire last month (which is what it should do as a usable currency).

But then

$4



[Edited on October 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

10/7/2011 3:18:47 PM

it should have increased until the world was saturated. the fact that it's only $5 with only 7million shares in a world of 7billion people says that it's a losing ticket. Too many initial investors were burned by the nature of the internet.

10/7/2011 3:23:53 PM

Wow, 60,000 bitcoins were just sold or redacted

10/7/2011 3:42:32 PM

3.85

LOLOLOLOL

10/7/2011 3:44:26 PM

Quote :

"you are in serious need of a BASIC constitutional history class. all enumerated powers are expressly given to the federal govt unless specified otherwise and if the power itself is not enumerated it is reserved to the states or the people. so i say again Congress is the only one with authority to coin money or regulate its value."

and you need to read that shit again. nowhere does it say that powers given to the Fed are completely prohibited from the people. logic 101, dude.

Quote :

"so i say again Congress is the only one with authority to coin money or regulate its value."

And you are wrong, again.

Quote :

"for your second ridiculous question, i'll just say that NO govt controls what another govt in another country regulates so they might be money in their respective countries but they're just currency here and aren't able to satisfy US debts and obligations. you can use the exchange to turn them into money (ie dollars)"

which is precisely why the statement to which I was responding was so fucking stupid. you just don't comprehend the definitions of words.

Quote :

"it most certainly does deny that power to the people. you have yet to name another form of money in the US, something other than the dollar or coinage that you could use to satisfy any and every debt and obligation. "

that is NOT the definition or requirement for money. Obviously, the Euro is most certainly money. yet it certainly would not cover every debt or obligation in the US. You are confusing money with a nation's legal tender.

10/7/2011 9:54:10 PM

name your source that isn't wikipedia

10/7/2011 10:26:00 PM

source for what? the Constitution? The 10th Amendment? Do you need me to give you a source for the terms "money," "currency," and "legal tender"? Can you refute the actual meanings that I've given? Of course not.

if you REALLY want to go this route, I'll do it:

money:
1. A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.
2. Paper money
3. gold, silver, or other metal in pieces of convenient form stamped by public authority and issued as a medium of exchange and measure of value.
4. any article or substance used as a medium of exchange, measure of wealth, or means of payment, as checks on demand deposit or cowrie.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/money
Note that only the 3rd references any government action. Nowhere is it required to be accepted at all places to be "money". And, even then, it has two other definitions, including the primary and secondary ones, that specifically leave out any government.

now, currency:
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/currency
The first Google definition includes a part about general use in a particular country, yet none of the offered links do so.

now, legal tender:
1. currency that may be lawfully tendered in payment of a debt, such as paper money, Federal Reserve notes, or coins.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legal+tender
Damn, that sounds EXACTLY like what I said legal tender is, doesn't it?

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 2:04:30 PM

and now here is where i repeat that if you walked into a courtroom and gave a dictionary definition as your answer you would be shamed out of the room

dictionary definitions are just above "i saw it once on law and order" on the scale of reputation.

so no, give me a definition that you can show has been proven to be legally enforceable.

you used the term "real world" earlier as if thats the opposite of what is legally enforceable but if thats so i'd prefer the latter cause it's gonna come out of your real wallet otherwise.

10/8/2011 2:41:52 PM

moving the fuck out of those goalposts, I see. funny how all you can fall back on now is absurd semantics. you argue one thing, then say "but that's not what the court says!!!"

you wanna talk about the courts, then? fine! no court in the US has EVER punished someone for making their own currency. no court in the US has ever punished someone for making their own money. US courts HAVE punished people for counterfeiting US currency and money. find me an existing and enforced US law that outlaws any citizen from making their own currency which is separate from the US dollar. Oh, and give me your "legal definitions" for currency and money.

even more hilarious is that in the most recent and obvious case of someone making their own currency, which you declare to be absolutely illegal and not allowed by the US Constitution, NOWHERE in the case was the person charged with a crime of "making a currency". he was charged with, say it with me, counterfeiting. seems that in an obvious case of someone making a currency, where he even says he is doing so, the federal government, which apparently has the power and a supposed law forbiding it, failed to charge him with that very law that you claim exists yet have failed to provide.

this is the basis of your argument at this point:
HERP DERP DERP!!! I've got a very specific definition of a word that only applies in one specific circumstance in court when dealing with whether someone was paid properly, and if overrules every other definition out there for the purpose of discussion. HERP DERP DERP!!!
HERP DERP DERP!!! Even when the gov't could use this definition and some law that they have that prohibits people creating a currency or money, they didn't in a famous case. HERP DERP DERP!!!

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 3:45:44 PM

And then, we look at the UCC, which apparently is God to you, and it says, "Under the Uniform Commercial Code, money is defined as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government as a part of its currency."
Note the key word there? "Its". As in, the govt's currency. So, even YOUR vaunted definition of money via the almighty UCC falls flat, because it turns into absolute absurdity. It would declare that the Euro is not money in the US, despite any rational person saying otherwise. Go into a court room and argue that the Euro is not a form of money. What the court will say, however, is that if you presented a Euro to a shopkeeper, he would not be obligated to take it. But it would NOT say that said Euro is not money.

we look at this definition and we see that what you are arguing at this point is a mere technicality and not indicative of how the word "money" is actually used by anyone. What you would essentially be arguing is that only in the US court does the word "money" have any meaning, and that definition ends up declaring that every other country isn't using money, because it's not what the US gov't says is "money". kind of a stupid fucking claim



moreover, what is so fucking stupid is that by changing the definition and referring to court, you've made it so that you aren't even talking about what we are talking about and you are then declaring victory. In the sense of the term "money" that would be used in court, the crime would be counterfeiting. The US gov't couldn't accuse me of "counterfeiting" if I create a currency and money that resembles nothing like the US dollar. If I call it the "Burro" and it has pictures of donkeys on it, is blue and red, and denominate it in Burros, you won't find the US gov't knocking on my door, at which point the courtroom definition would never apply. Essentially, what you are arguing is "you can't counterfeit", with which I agree. But if what I am doing is not counterfeiting, then the courts never apply, and it makes perfect sense to use a dictionary definition. At the point I went into a courtroom over creating my own currency or money, my defense would not be the dictionary. It would be showing how what I have made is not and was not intended to mimic or appear like the US Dollar.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 4:18:48 PM

you must have changed your argument because all of my posts have been on this one page and here is my second post

Quote :

"starting your own currency is fine, starting your own money is not even possible (at least in this day and age, it has to be accepted for all reasons automatically) "

no the Euro is not money here in the US, rather its THEIR money. thats what you're failing to understand. The US can't regulate the value of the Euro (it can regulate the price of the exchange to the dollar but only on the dollar side). In Europe the Euro is money, the dollar is fuck all. In the US the dollar is money, the Euro is fuck all. Bitcoin is forever fuck all. As would be a pocket of seashells. You're free to barter and trade and accept it if you choose as a currency but until it becomes a de facto method of paying off debts and obligations it will never be money.

If you really really really wanted to shut me up just get your hand on some Euros and just pay for something with it. Show me a receipt where it says you bought 3 Summer Eve's douches which you are in serious need of and they took Euros no questions asked. Do it or you're a pussy.

10/8/2011 4:40:49 PM

and that statement is still just as false now as it was then. again, you are arguing about legal tender. where in the UCC definition, remember, your god of a definition, does it specify that in order for something to be money it has to be accepted everywhere? right, it doesn't.

you are consistently arguing that individuals cannot create legal tender, which is very true. but every definition of "money" save one specific one used in the determination of the payment of contracts, dictates that money is a medium of exchange, no more, no less.

you've just come in and completely changed the meaning of a word, and it's downright sad. the status of whether or not something is money is completely independent of location, with the exception of the local courts in the case of a dispute. what you would have is a case of "is something money that would be accepted," which is a far different question than simply "is something money."

again, give us a definition of money you will accept, and when we disagree, give us a source. you'll quickly see that you are using a specialty definition that doesn't apply and that all other definitions are in specific disagreement with yours

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 5:04:07 PM

just stop and think about what you are saying. now you're admitting that i'm right that money is only authorized by the govt but that it doesnt mean its automatically accepted to satisfy all debt and obligations? that makes no sense.

so the govt just authorized the money for shits and giggles? thats the MAIN purpose of having money, its the lawful way to discharge debt and make payments. thats the advantage of being more than regular currency.
coins are money but they dont need to be legal tender because they are (or were) intrisicly worth their weight in the precious metal. dollars on the other hand are money and necessarily legal tender because that piece of paper is actually otherwise worthless. that's why it's also called a note, a promise that it holds the value of money.

read the legal tender cases (thats what they are called) from the Supreme Court in 1870 and then read up how the court has since used that interpretation

that's the Supreme Court by the way, the supreme law of the land. you'll also note those cases explicitly take the power away from the States.

10/8/2011 8:13:30 PM

Quote :

"just stop and think about what you are saying. now you're admitting that i'm right that money is only authorized by the govt but that it doesnt mean its automatically accepted to satisfy all debt and obligations?"

that's not AT ALL what I've said. where in the UCC definition that you hold as god does it say such a thing? right, it doesn't!

Quote :

"so the govt just authorized the money for shits and giggles?"

not exactly. it also created the money, which is, effectively, how it authorized it. It then declared it legal tender so as to make it so people had to accept it. Are you not seeing the difference in these two terms at this point? This is why both the Euro and the Dollar are money, no matter where you are, but only one might be legal tender based on your location. Your UCC definition, again, says nothing about whether or not something must be accepted. It just says it was authorized. At which point you rightfully ask why the distinction exists, at which I point out what I previous said: money is irrelevant to location, legal tender is not. In the US, the Dollar is both money and legal tender.

and, again, we HAVE to note that your god definition is different than every other definition. That suggests that it is a specialist definition for use in a specific setting and context. Again, in that context, if the US were to bring me up on charges of "making money", it would be a counterfeiting charge. They would never bring me in for creating my own Burro money, as long as it wasn't a knock-off of the US Dollar.

10/8/2011 9:14:58 PM

The legal definition of money has already been posted. Bitcoin isn't money.

10/8/2011 9:42:48 PM

and if you even bothered to read, you would see the specific problem with that definition

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 9:48:09 PM

UCC, http://ecclesia.org/truth/definitions.html, Black's Law Dictionary: money. (14c) 1. The medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency; esp. domestic currency . UCC § 1–201(24).

Just because you say there is a problem with it doesn't make it wrong or support what you are saying.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ,]

10/8/2011 9:54:00 PM

Quote :

"Just because you say there is a problem with it doesn't make it wrong or support what you are saying."

really? that's all you got? I give you the specific problem with it, and that's your response? I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

again, that definition would ONLY matter if I got into court. but I would never get into court, because there is no prohibition against making my own currency. And in order to make my own currency, I have to make my own money. And there is no prohibition against making my own money, except that I can't counterfeit. Thus, as long as the money I create isn't counterfeit or strikingly similar to the US Dollar, then I am A-OK. And at that point, I have created my own money. Your definition, as far as the court is concerned, would mean that I can't create the money which has been authorized by the US gov't. If I make BurroBux, then I aint creating the US's currency or money. Thus the legal definition is only important if my activities bring me afoul of the law, which they don't, because there is no statute against individuals creating their own currencies or money. Only statutes against counterfeiting

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 9:55:50 PM

Quote :

"Notice it says "currently authorized by a ... government". If I make my own currency, it doesn't run afoul of that definition."

No you don't get it. It's not a inclusive definition. It's exclusive. Anything that's a medium of exchange that is NOT authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency is NOT money.

Quote :

"In the United States, where most of the BTC action seems to be taking place at the moment, only the US Dollar is legal tender (31 U.S.C. § 5103). Similarly, only the Mint and the Federal Reserve can produce coins and currency, which are the only means of legal tender. Title 31 of the US Code does not seem to make the distinction between legal currency and legal tender, so to me both are one and the same (please comment if this is not the case). This is corroborated by several official documents that indicate clearly that only the USD is allowed as the official currency of the United States. According to the FBI “it is a violation of federal law for individuals, [...] or organizations,[...] to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.” I am no securities expert, but it would seem that Bitcoin would not fall under definitions of securities and commodities either(see here for a discussion on these). So in my humble opinion Bitcoin is not legal currency in the United States."

- http://www.technollama.co.uk/is-bitcoin-legal

Your 'specific' problem with it is the problem with bitcoin to begin with. If something is not a "medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency" then it's NOT MONEY.

Guess what happens when people get screwed? They go to court. Guess what's gonna happen to someone who tries to cry foul in a bitcoin transaction? Summary judgement against them.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM. Reason : Game Over.]

10/8/2011 10:04:17 PM

Quote :

"No you don't get it. It's not a inclusive definition. It's exclusive. Anything that's a medium of exchange that is NOT authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency is NOT money. "

for the purposes of a court of law. if I never get there, it doesn't fucking matter!

Quote :

"Your 'specific' problem with it is the problem with bitcoin to begin with. "

and your specific problem is that you are not fucking reading. look at what that quote is talking about: legal fucking tender! And it is specifically incorrect in saying that the people can't produce a coin or currency, where you'll note that he offers no source. Forgive me for not taking the word of a blogger as gospel. The only source he gave was the NotHaus case, which, oddly enough, doesn't charge him with making a currency. It charged him with counterfeiting! They most certainly issued a press release saying something about, but the actual court proceedings would suggest that his creation of a currency was not a problem at all. The only statement I really see is a US Attorney calling a man a terrorist for making his own currency, yet he apparently couldn't prove it in court.

Quote :

"Guess what's gonna happen to someone who tries to cry foul in a bitcoin transaction? Summary judgement against them."

Not so fast. the court will look at the transaction and the agreements that went into it. If the guy agreed to accept an amount of bitcoin and was given said amount of bitcoin, then there's no reason to think the law would suddenly show up and say "you have to pay him in dollars!" It would look at it as no more than a bartering of goods. The definition of money wouldn't even come in to play. you lose

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 10:18:02 PM

10/9/2011 1:45:44 PM

Quote :

"for the purposes of a court of law. if I never get there, it doesn't fucking matter!"

yikes. it scares me when i realize people like you exist. courts enforce the laws of society. if you're part of society, you're subject to those laws and those interpretations that the court makes. not common sense, not what the majority thinks, if its not endorsed by a court or the legislature it's not "how things work in the real world".

10/9/2011 1:56:09 PM

Quote :

". courts enforce the laws of society. if you're part of society, you're subject to those laws and those interpretations that the court makes."

Didn't know you could say "No" to being part of society. Actually my crazy uncle did it... he declared himself an independent country or something weird like that and it's recognized by our country.

10/9/2011 2:06:07 PM

you can expatriate yourself but they're not likely to allow it unless they know they can deport you somewhere else, you have to belong somewhere

10/9/2011 2:17:22 PM

Quote :

"yikes. it scares me when i realize people like you exist. courts enforce the laws of society. if you're part of society, you're subject to those laws and those interpretations that the court makes. not common sense, not what the majority thinks, if its not endorsed by a court or the legislature it's not "how things work in the real world"."

this is true. and no court has ruled or will rule on whether or not my Burro Bux count as "money" per the UCC definition. Because they don't care about it because they don't have the legal authority to do so. They consider "money" in cases that demand it its consideration. My creating Burro Bux never enters their realm, unless and until my Burro Bux start looking like or getting passed off as Dollar Bux.

10/11/2011 9:58:08 PM

$2.9

(It went as low as $2.5 in the past few hours)

Shit is at less than 10% of its peak value and falling fast. The founder of the the pirate party supposedly put all of his savings into bitcoin. By now, he has lost 70% of it all.

10/17/2011 8:00:31 AM

i wanna naked short sell cosbycoins

10/18/2011 10:02:48 PM

sorry for the double-post

but I just couldn't pass this up

10/19/2011 7:51:58 PM

$5

what the fuck

1/4/2012 9:31:19 AM

It was $5.50 on Jan 1. The speculators think that $4.00 can be supported and that $5 is a short term bubble. It is interesting to watch the 15% daily swings lately.

1/4/2012 10:55:40 AM

The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/all/1

1/4/2012 11:45:04 AM

Quote :

"The founder of the the pirate party supposedly"

sheeeeeiittt. More like he put his savings in it before it went big then told everyone he put his savings in it to drive the price higher so he could cash out.

1/4/2012 4:30:35 PM

$6

1/4/2012 8:33:30 PM

$7

1/15/2012 5:57:23 PM

1/15/2012 5:59:17 PM