Isn't bitcoin explicitly a currency? I don't see any ambiguity around that. Or do you only get to be a currency if you're backed by a government entity that can be manipulated?
Although I don't think many regulators in the US govt. are really concerned with the explicit purpose Bitcoin was created with, you are touching on something I think is interesting.
My perspective is that the real promise of Bitcoin is to be "successful" regardless of government regulations and categorizations. I know it sounds idealistic but I think if the Bitcoin community needs the US govt. to cooperate in order to be successful then it's probably not going to happen.
I guess "success" could be defined as widespread use. Somewhat stable (non-zero) value for Bitcoin would also probably be part of "success." :)
Just because someone says that Bitcoin is a currency doesn't make it one. Keep in mind that the Japanese Yen is a currency in Japan, but under US regulations, it is not. Likewise, the US Dollar is probably not a currency in Japan, but an asset/commodity.
Keep in mind that the Japanese Yen is a currency in Japan, but under US regulations, it is not.
For many purposes, yes, it is, especially in tax law, which is why people also wanted Bitcoins to be recognized as such.
Under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, foreign currency like the Yen has special rules vis-a-vis commodities. In particular, when you buy something with Yen (up to $200 in value), it is not considered a realization of capital gains and so it is not taxable, unlike if you used a commodity to pay.
My perspective is that the real promise of Bitcoin is to be "successful" regardless of government regulations and categorizations. I know it sounds idealistic but I think if the Bitcoin community needs the US govt. to cooperate in order to be successful then it's probably not going to happen.
I guess "success" could be defined as widespread use. Somewhat stable (non-zero) value for Bitcoin would also probably be part of "success." :)