> 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.