[anigbrowl]

I don't mean to offend, but this is what is wrong with the typical tl;dr summary; you've excerpted a core part of the argument, but you haven't explained the assertion made therein. To follow on (in my own words):

As Bitcoin is a separate currency from the USD, the kind of transactions that Bitcoin Foundation members are engaged in are in effect foreign exchange (forex) transactions, and Forex is not considered subject to money transmission regulations by the state of California.

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but haven't studied the legal background enough to form a proper opinion yet. the reason I was so pleased to see a link to a document with primary sources is that it makes it a lot easier to research the arguments therein, inviting good-faith attempts at falsification.

[bigiain]

Hmmmm, I wonder how strategic this claim is?

Perhaps they're just waiting for the state of California to declare in a legally binding way that Bitcoin is not a "separate currency from the USD". That'd be something a _lot_ of people would love to be able to promote and quote prominently…