Yes, this is what I wrote. Now type chattel into Google with autocomplete and tell me the first item that comes up for you as an autocomplete option...

n item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property. 2. : slave, bondman · See chattel ...

I wonder if past search history affects results, my second result was from the free online dictionary and referenced cattle.

I am not sure how I would take offense, perhaps certain groups are predisposed to do so?

If that's a joke, you are a genius.

But it doesn't have many definitions. It has one definition. (Okay, two: one as a noun, and one as an adjective which essentially restricts the noun it modifies to the subset of the thing that noun refers to that also meet the noun definition of "chattel".) And what is being done (for which "fucktarded" may still be a valid description) isn't choosing a definition by autocomplete, its assuming that any other use of the adjective form is a reference to the use of the adjective form that is behind the autocomplete.

Which is about equivalent to assuming that any use of "green" as an adjective is a reference to "green acres" (which is what autocomplete suggests first for "green", at least when I use it.)

Rayiner, who is a lawyer, presumably typed his comment with his mouth wide open and his forehead bleeding from being pounded on the desk. There isn't a lawyer in the country who doesn't know what the term means. Presumably, your comments are to a legal professional what the guys who invent their own ridiculous substitution ciphers are to professional cryptographers.

If I say: "I had to tape my rims back together so I could see" is it relevant that Google's first completion for the word "rims" is "rims and tires?"

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chattel+propert...

Currency doesn't even register. Slavery wins by miles.

The course of analysis you're following is like trying to prove programmers don't like allocated memory because they refer to it as "garbage" that needs to be "collected."

It actually returns quite a lot of things other than this article, though much of it is chaff (things where you have something like "... chattel. Currency, ..."). Quite a lot of it, though, is sites unrelated to this article using it as a reference to non-legal-tender currency, most of which appear to be goldbug conspiracy theorist sites [1].

Though a couple of them [2], the use happens to reference the use of humans as "chattel currency", so I guess that's the closest thing to actual support to the "chattel currency" = "slavery" meme that is being peddled upthread. But even these uses actually are using "chattel currency" precisely as a something which is not legal tender used as a medium of exchange.

[1] http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1472757/pg1 http://401k-retirement-plan.com/982/bob-chapman-the-financia... http://boards.fool.com/us-debt-default-27483004.aspx?sort=wh... http://www.bust-video.info/v/yt:HKFSOjx9pAg/1 [2] http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/171930-emergency-powers... http://www.qbn.com/topics/406933/1404054/

I am guessing, as suggested by others, that he actually said "shadow". Still loaded language (bitcoin is hardly shadow; the blockchain is public..) but it makes far more sense in the context.

Its used prior to the article at issue here, numerous times, in the exact sense used in the article (a derogatory reference to non-legal-tender currency), by a community that it has been widely observed overlaps with the bitcoin enthusiast community, and which it would be quite likely to expect that the speaker quoted in the article at issue here would, therefore, be likely to be directing his comments at.

That's not "background search noise", that's directly relevant to the usage in the quote in the article.

It is not a common term by any means. I find it extremely plausible that it was incorrectly transcribed in this instance.

Barring that, I find it plausible that it was picked for it's loaded connotations (If so many people have found this term objectionable, and the term is not in common usage otherwise, I find it plausible that all of the usages that you have found were picked with the common usage of "chattel" in mind. Were this a term that actually seemed to be in common usage, I would not find this to be plausible.)

The later was my knee-jerk interpretation, but I think I was wrong and my money is now on the former.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5670201

I don't. The context it is used in in the article (not just the reference to "chattel currency" but the reference to the user of such a currency being a "shill for the financial industry" is pretty dead on the the criticism by the subculture in which you find "chattel currency" used prior to the article makes of US Federal Reserve Notes as a scam that was promoted by the banking giants that are members of the Fed to get people to hand over their "legal tender" gold for not-legal-tender (as they claim) Federal Reserve Notes, the commissioner has just dropped bitcoin into the place of Federal Reserve Notes and the network of bitcoin miners in place of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve system.

Its not particularly plausible that the commissioner meant to say something else and it was conveniently "mistranscribed" into an attack on bitcoin that specifically uses both the terminology and the substantive logic of a attack by a subculture that has substantial overlap with the pro-bitcoin community against the trustworthiness of the US dollar and the system supporting it.

(And clicking the link works for me, don't know why it seems broken to you.)