I find it amusing that the exempt e-money while targeting "digital currency". What exactly is the distinction?
Well, they might be digital currency under the definition, but that kind of rewards program appears to be excluded from the (rather lengthy) definition of "digital currency business", which would mean the regulations would generally not apply to them.
> What about stocks/bonds?
What about them?
> I find it amusing that the exempt e-money while targeting "digital currency". What exactly is the distinction?
Again, from the proposed bill at the link:
“E-money” means a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency.
I think this is because financial institutions dealing with fiat currencies already have significant regulations that is not intended to apply to.
My Bitcoin is a digital representation of the bits needed to solve a particular block. It doesn't represent value, but a numerical solution to a mathematical problem.
That stance is called the rule of law and being technically correct matters. That's the whole point of that court thing.
http://time.com/money/4421955/bitcoin-miami-judge-money-laun...
As one of many factors. The rule of law does not suspend human reason and common sense. SCOTUS recently ruled in favour of original intent over a strictly structural in an ACA case, where the later would have meant literally interpreting a likely typo [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare...
>Playing dumb only makes you look dumb.
Laws typically don't incorporate definitions of words used when they aren't used in a special sense in the law.
> My Bitcoin is a digital representation of the bits needed to solve a particular block.
No doubt.
> It doesn't represent value,
The "X needed for Y" have value to the extent Y has value; I would suggest that there is considerable evidence which might be marshaled that solving Bitcoin blocks has value.
So, I would think that your explanation of what Bitcoin does represent supports the conclusion that it is a digital representation of value, not that it is not such a representation.
>“Digital currency” means any digital representation of value
You can't classify something as digital currency without knowing what value means or how to measure it.
It may be important to this law, but that doesn't mean that it is used specially (as in, in any but its most contextually-obvious general-use sense) in the law.
I mean, the meaning of "is" is also very important to the meaning of most laws, but is rarely defined in the enactment.
> You can't classify something as digital currency without knowing what value means
True, but that doesn't take a non-standard, law-specific definition.
> or how to measure it.
Untrue -- quantification of value is not relevant to the definition.
Value is being discussed (even though you appear to be using an unrevealed definition) as a quantity (maybe, I am wrong, and it is not a quantity), which means there must be a way to quantify it.
For someone to claim that the numbers I hold represent something else, is an error.
You're not really arguing that currency derives its value from the material cost of producing it, are you? Because then everything is a currency. Modern currencies are special precisely because they have much more value than their material cost.
“Digital currency” means any digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and is used to facilitate the sale, purchase, and exchange of goods, services, or other digital representations of value among its users. Digital currency does not include fiat currency, e-money, or currency value of which was fixed by its issuer to the value of a fiat currency.