Bitcoin doesn't involve any encryption.

As long as the FCC interprets statute to not consider signed transactions as encryption (which is a possible outcome).

The ban is not on encryption per se (which, as you point out, could be confused with cryptography in general), but on attempting to obscure the content of messages. Obscuring message content is by no means a function of digital signatures.

For ECDSA you can’t provide a signature isn’t arbitrary data. The nonce is by definition not known, so it contains enciphered information.

That's true but not relevant here because the intent of the signatures is not to conceal the nonces.

I think you mean it can't be proven not to have 8 bytes of enciphered information.

But anyway, you can use a hash function to generate the 8 bytes of nonce.

You can’t prove you did without revealing the nonce, and therefor the private key.

You could reveal it once the transaction is used. If anyone really doubts your 8 bytes.

Correct, it involves a variety of cryptographic systems.

Ok, so why do they call it crypto?

It's shortened from "cryptocurrency", which derives from "cryptography". Bitcoin does use cryptography, including cryptographic hash functions (for summarizing data in a tamper-resistant way) and signatures (for attesting to authorship), but it doesn't make use of encryption, as the technology doesn't require concealing the content of any communication.

Encryption and cryptography are different things.

Encryption is a type of cryptography, but not all cryptography is encryption.

Yeah, or disagree with policy and law regarding who controls radio spectrum use. Short and long wave pirates serve a purpose and have a longstanding history of testing lines with defiance.

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio#References + https://sites.google.com/site/napiratehof/landing