So as the title suggests, this article pays tribute to the rather incredible milestone mention that Bitcoin was given within the U.S. Supreme Court. For those of you who haven’t read the exact words that were said, please allow me to enlighten you…
In the case of Wisconsin Central Ltd. Et Al. v United States the following statement was quoted:
“True, some of those dictionaries say that ‘money’ primarily refers to currency or promissory documents used as ‘a medium of exchange.’ See ante, at 2–3. But even this definition has its ambiguities. A railroad employee cannot use her paycheck as a “medium of exchange.’ She cannot hand it over to a cashier at the grocery store; she must first deposit it. The same is true of stock, which must be converted into cash and deposited in the employee’s account before she can enjoy its monetary value.
[caption id="attachment_114554" align="alignleft" width="230"]
“Moreover, what we view as money has changed over time. Cowrie shells once were such a medium but no longer are, see J. Weatherford, The History of Money 24 (1997); our currency originally included gold coins and bullion, but, after 1934, gold could not be used as a medium of exchange, see Gold Reserve Act of 1934, ch. 6, §2, 48 Stat. 337; perhaps one day employees will be paid in Bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency, see F. Martin, Money: The Unauthorized Biography—From Coinage to Cryptocurrencies 275–278 (1st Vintage Books ed. 2015). Nothing in the statute suggests the meaning of this provision should be trapped in a monetary time warp, forever limited to those forms of money commonly used in the 1930’s.”
So what does this actually mean when you read into it? Well, many have been taking it as a victory and further reassurance that Bitcoin is here to stay and that people should continue to invest in it. However, I have somewhat of a different view. Bitcoin has paved the way for the mainstream knowledge of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, however, in reality, it is the 1.0 version of this, dated and inferior against 2.0 (Ethereum) and 3.0 (EOS) currencies that have far more flexibility in their usage of smart contracts and efficiencies in mining costs.
Its reference in the Supreme Court should be taken as ‘even the most traditional and high ranking authorities are aware and accepting of the inevitable future that cryptocurrencies offer the world as a form of currencies and payment.’
Their reference to Bitcoin is purely due to a common and mainstream knowledge of crypto, but does not imply or condone that Bitcoin is the future of how we will all get paid. So smart readers should take this as a triumph for cryptocurrencies not Bitcoin.
In my opinion, that ship has peaked, sailed and is being kept afloat by the later adopters in this market, who watched the enormous spike before Christmas 2017 and now see that the market seems to have truly corrected itself and are now jumping on the later bandwagon.
My opinion is, if you educate yourself more, there are currencies and ICOs out there that offer more return and longevity now that Bitcoin can, so do your research and consider those. It is still the wild west in this market, but we’re certainly seeing mainstream waves towards its long term future, just find a cryptocurrency that has been built with long-term in mind, Bitcoin certainly cannot offer the functionality within its smart contracts that new 3.0 currencies like EOS will bring to the market and since they just landed $4 billion in their ICO, now is a good time to get in their and Hodl.
Contributors
