Interesting hand-waving going on here. For some reason they're citing the California Commercial Code when they know full well than FinCEN Guidance FIN-2013-G001 ( http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.... ) takes precedence. Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point, and the Department of the Treasury has already deemed that it is within the bounds of state regulators.…
> Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point
On the contrary, I found myself having an "a ha" moment when they pointed out that nobody, anywhere, is obligated to give a holder of bitcoin anything.
Reminds me of when Bernanke told Ron Paul that gold is not money. (Presumably for similar reason: it represents stored confidence, not an entity backed guarantee of payment.)