Bitcoin is certainly a subject of interest to HN readers, but this article is absolutely terrible. For example: what does this sentence mean? > The definition

Bitcoin is certainly a subject of interest to HN readers, but this article is absolutely terrible. For example: what does this sentence mean? > The definition Bitcoin that guided the ruling of the district court is based on the FinCEN interpretive guide which is noted as not ambiguous for understandable. The news here seems to be that using Bitcoin can meet the definition in 18 U.S.C. 1960: > (2) the term “money transmitting” includes transferring funds on behalf of the public by any and all means... I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to require that Bitcoin be "legal [sic] money", just that it happened to be the medium for moving money around in this case. This article is much more clear: https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-qualifies-as-money-and-funds-rules-us-district-court-for-the-eastern-district-of-michigan/ https://ambcrypto.com/bitcoin-btc-qualifies-as-money-and-fun...