4 ms·

FinCEN is incorrect. Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitco

by javert 12y ago

FinCEN is incorrect. Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin. I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> FinCEN is incorrect. No, they aren't. > Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." Even if that supported your argument (which it doesn't, see next paragraph), it wouldn't matter, because the meanings of phrases aren't necessarily determined by the meanings and/or history of the component words in isolation. But FinCEN's definition of "virtual currency" is consistent with the common definition of "virtual". Their definition of "virtual currency" is exactly the #1 definition of virtual [1] applied to the uncontroversial definition of "currency". (And calling Bitcoin virtual currency would also be consistent with definition #4, particularly definition #4a, though some non-electronic entities that would meet FinCEN's definition would be excluded by that definition.) > And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin. You being wrong for a long time doesn't make you any less wrong. > I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth. I don't know if you understand that legal definitions established by government do create meanings that are used in legal documents such as contracts, terms of service, etc., whether or not they are "truth" in some abstract, idealized sense. [1] from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual
- javert 12y ago
  In what sense is bitcoin NOT a currency? It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you favor. Any answer I can imagine that you would give would invalidate other things we all consider currencies, unless you draw a line based on non-fundamental properties (e.g. such as backing by government force or market cap). And you can't form a proper concept using non-fundamental properties. So the definition you favor actually supports my view, though I think the definition you favor lacks appropriate context and nuance (which is often true of dictionary definitions). Talking about the government defining something creating meaning is just irrelevant. You're obviously telling me things I already know, but the government is technically incorrect on this. Just as they are on calling capital gains "unearned income," for example, since many successful investors work hard and do earn their income.
  - jaekwon 12y ago
    > It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you favor. incorrect.
    - javert 12y ago
      > being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted Here is the definition he favors, it has to be not formally recognized or admitted as a currency to fit this definition. I shouldn't even have bothered responding to such a worthless comment.

by javert 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> FinCEN is incorrect. No, they aren't. > Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." Even if that supported your argument (which it doesn't, see next paragraph), it wouldn't matter, because the meanings of phrases aren't necessarily determined by the meanings and/or history of the component words in isolation. But FinCEN's definition of "virtual currency" is consistent with the common definition of "virtual". Their definition of "virtual currency" is exactly the #1 definition of virtual [1] applied to the uncontroversial definition of "currency". (And calling Bitcoin virtual currency would also be consistent with definition #4, particularly definition #4a, though some non-electronic entities that would meet FinCEN's definition would be excluded by that definition.) > And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin. You being wrong for a long time doesn't make you any less wrong. > I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth. I don't know if you understand that legal definitions established by government do create meanings that are used in legal documents such as contracts, terms of service, etc., whether or not they are "truth" in some abstract, idealized sense. [1] from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual

javert 12y ago
In what sense is bitcoin NOT a currency? It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you favor. Any answer I can imagine that you would give would invalidate other things we all consider currencies, unless you draw a line based on non-fundamental properties (e.g. such as backing by government force or market cap). And you can't form a proper concept using non-fundamental properties. So the definition you favor actually supports my view, though I think the definition you favor lacks appropriate context and nuance (which is often true of dictionary definitions). Talking about the government defining something creating meaning is just irrelevant. You're obviously telling me things I already know, but the government is technically incorrect on this. Just as they are on calling capital gains "unearned income," for example, since many successful investors work hard and do earn their income.
- jaekwon 12y ago
  > It has to not be a currency to be a virtual currency, by the definition you favor. incorrect.
  - javert 12y ago
    > being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted Here is the definition he favors, it has to be not formally recognized or admitted as a currency to fit this definition. I shouldn't even have bothered responding to such a worthless comment.