Abstract
In 2009, a curious new virtual currency called Bitcoin made its first appearance on the Internet. While it remains a “niche” currency relative to other major denominations like the U.S. dollar, Bitcoin has experienced significant growth since its inception. The total number of Bitcoins in circulation is about 12.5 million, with a recent market price of about $500 each. Today, Bitcoin’s total market capitalization is about $6 billion, and in the past it has been as high as $13 billion. The average number of Bitcoin transactions per day has averaged over 60,000 since January 2014, reflecting between $20 million and $100 million worth of transactions per day. The numbers show that in the five years since its first appearance, Bitcoin has grown tremendously in popular knowledge and usage. Although it is clear that Bitcoin can be used to purchase goods and services, and can be given an explicit dollar value, questions remain about the economic and legal status of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies that have emerged in its wake. Members of the Bitcoin developer and user community believe “Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and new kind of money.” Others, like the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, take the position that Bitcoin is a type of commodity or property. Whether Bitcoin is a new form of virtual money or simply an electronic commodity requires an investigation into what constitutes money, and an assessment of whether Bitcoin comfortably fits into the parameters of what we consider to be money. This paper finds that, at this stage in its development, Bitcoin is not money and more closely resembles a commodity or property. This paper begins by giving a brief overview of Bitcoin and how it operates. It then describes two major theories of money — the conventional and constitutional theories — that differ in their accounts of how money emerges within a society or political grouping. The paper assesses how well Bitcoin fits under each theory by assessing Bitcoin’s economic properties and implementation. It then turns to the impact of the Bitcoin on the two theories of money, finding it likely does not support the conventional creation story of money and instead lends credence to the constitutional theory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
