“Other bitcoins” doesn’t parse - did you mean “other shitcoins”? Bitcoin is a specific product, and shitcoins are a disjoint category.
The government only requires people to be accredited for "ICO"s, not currency/utility "coins" like Bitcoin or Ethereum.
As an aside, I believe the “accredited investor” category is mostly a subsidy of rich people. Exclude peasants from investing in the good high-return stuff and you can demand higher capital premiums.
The legislature is in place after the wild decades portrayed in the movie "The Wolf of Wall Street". In an indiscriminate freewheeling environment very few peasants got the good high-return stuff, but many had their savings wiped out by slick salesmen with promises of quick riches.
Buggy parser; you wouldn't call paper towels or wet wipes Kleenex, right? Because that's what you're insinuating by calling other cryptocurrencies 'Bitcoin'.
If someone told me to pass the Kleenex where only paper towels are, my hypothetical self with hypothetical knowledge about the intricacies of paper products, I would probably roll my eyes and internally go “those aren’t Kleenex at all, they’re not even tissues, don’t they know the difference between long fiber and short fiber cellulose based paper products GAWD!” But in an effort to not seem insufferable, and because I know exactly what they meant, I would just pass the paper towel.
Your logic is flawed. Just because you can find an example of a specific product name being used as a generic term does not prove that a different specific product can be used that way.
In the case of Bitcoin, it most certainly will create confusion if attempt to refer to a generic group cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin.
lol, soooo what was wrong with this comment? Downvoters, you think that someone will know you mean the generic class of cryptocurrency if you refer specifically to Bitcoin??
No, you didn't even acknowledge the existence of securities regulation in your original comment, even though the whole premise of it was that things like Grams are, like "wildcatting", legitimate businesses. Only after you were challenged about the existence of securities regulation did you reveal your real position, which is that you believe those regulations lack validity.
That latter argument is, of course, your real point. You could have made it directly. Why didn't you? Why did you instead pretend that it was obvious that Grams should be lawful, because "wildcatting" is?
I was responding to the analogy about gold mining in my original comment. Why would I randomly bring up securities regulation? I think you might have lost the thread a bit.
The government only requires people to be accredited for "ICO"s, not currency/utility "coins" like Bitcoin or Ethereum.
As an aside, I believe the “accredited investor” category is mostly a subsidy of rich people. Exclude peasants from investing in the good high-return stuff and you can demand higher capital premiums.