Playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Judges/legislators/basically everyone can see right through this kind of pretense and aren't particularly sympathetic to the "b...but I'm technically correct!" stance.

> and aren't particularly sympathetic to the "b...but I'm technically correct!" stance.

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...

> the rule of law and being technically correct matters

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...

Technically correct is the only kind; no pretense needed.

>Playing dumb only makes you look dumb.

> Missing is a definition of what "value" is.

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.

The word is very special to this law as it is the core word defining "Digital Currency":

>“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.

> The word is very special to this law as it is the core word defining "Digital Currency":

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.

If you show me a method of quantification, I can derive 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.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Bitcoin is not a representation of value, or are you merely suggesting that there might be more ambiguous cases?

I'm saying my coins were mined and only represent a solution to a vey specific problem.

For someone to claim that the numbers I hold represent something else, is an error.

It represents the resource and infrastructure investment needed to calculate the solution to a block. The resource being electricity, and the infrastructure being the computer and any peripherals needed (i.e. expensive video card).

It represents the resource and infrastructure investment needed to produce the note. The resources being ink and paper, and the infrastructure being the machinery, labor, electricity, gas and trucks needed.

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.