Bitcoin Forum

So while I intuitively know what Bitcoin's are, and have since I decided to buy and mine them over 22 months ago, most people just don't seem to care, I read a lot about what it is not, and what it is, seems to be always a complicated explanation that day to day people seem to loos interest over. 

Or worse it is described as "virtual currency" and seems to lack traction or credibility. Conjuring imagery of buying virtual food or a virtual plane trip to enjoy virtual fun leaving day to day Fiat accepting people thinking it is good for virtually nothing tangible, and leaving the belief intact that Fiat is tangible.
(before some one can grasp the merits of Bitcoin one first has to understand the problem that money is Virtual, and while Fiat money buys tangible things it is an inferior virtual concept. )
 
Given Bitcoin's are not:
- a ponzi scheme, although there are many similarities as it propagates the way it is.
- a commodity, although it triads like one it has no commodity value other than the intrinsic value being P2P and secure and finite. 
- a Currency, well not just yet or not, because it is virtual (ethereal) and lacks scale making it big enough to support a triad based micro economy (silk road aside given most bitcoiners probably aren't trading on SR)
- Securities or investments, well not practicality by guarantee or by definition although the Bitcoin community defiantly sees it this way.
- Money either, well it has potential, but while the Market Cap in value dwarfs  BTC economic GDP, it is safe to say it's value as money is inherent in the system, but not reflected in the economy.

This may sound obvious but in the light of the above it seems to be a bit of an insight for me, to think of Bitcoin as the first finite digital property. The digital property Idea allows it to evolve to be any one of the "not" definitions above.

A Digital world being endless is by its virtual nature repeatable and abundant. In essence the internet era constitutes a paradigm shift for humanity which has evolved in a finite world, and now Bitcoin creates a tangible bridge between the Virtual and Finite.

Despite hundreds of years of attempts to make virtual ideas real by calling them Intellectual Property (IP) or the ever evolution of DRM, and redefining our laws to make them legitimate, Bitcoin is the first technology to make virtual properly finite. 

So am I wrong thinking Bitcoin is virtual property?

"am I wrong thinking bitcoins are virtual property"

to me this is the most interesting question on the forum and has not been addressed! My last attempt at discussing this got me labeled as a troll! because I was misunderstood and "appeared" to dismiss btc. On the contrary as soon as I came across the concept it leapt out at me as significant as the introduction of the internet or bigger.
Back to the question ( like- does god exist) this will be debated ad-infinitum- however to the above the answer is yes and no?
Anything virtual only exists because of the medium on which it is stored, so like btc on a computer/disc/memory stick/paper etc it is virtual property and will be coveted as such in the same way that films/music is. However the actual strings of random numbers in cyberspace just as the film or song does not physically exist at all. It is an abstract subjective concept.
This is a great strength and valued between people. Just like an idea or a song you have heard or film you have seen it cannot be taken from you unlike anything physical. It returns autonomy over your finances to yourself alone.
Attacks on btc follow the familiar path of trying to control intellectual property and are against the "medium" exchanges wallets etc. On the whole attempts to control or own anything subjective will fail and that is my main reason for optimism for btc.  reg

A related question:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117551.0

Like in the case of "stealing", you need to be careful about the word "property".
As I understand it you cannot steal bitcoin, but you "can" commit various other crimes when you try to access bitcoins/keys which you are not authorized to.

Similar "property":
E.g. my credit card doesn't even belong to me. The plastic is property of the card issuance company, and the number is something like an access code for the VISA/Mastercard services.

Given that, bitcoins are not property, but information, which is protected by authorization keys. There are two aspects to authorization: technical and legal. E.g. I can give you the private key for my savings address, but make a contract that you are only allowed to use it in case of my death. Then if you use it without my permission, you have performed unauthorized access.

Thanks for the insights,
So Bitcoins are information on the P2P network, when I get given Bitcoin's I never actually take position or ownership, I just get given a right to decide how to direct that information.  The idea as BTC as property is merely a convenient concept for relating my understanding to the meme of ownership.

This is more profound than I thought, how would smart property and contracts and other ideas being developed to function within the Bitcoin system work given that reality?     
thanks for the insite,

Why can't information be property?

Information is inherently free, we can make laws that make it property, but it has characteristics that property doesn't. You can keep it safe by preventing it from spreading by keeping it a secret, property on the other hand is kept safe by protecting it physically. To make Information property you have to take the meme or property and apply that meme to the concept of information, it is intellectually dishonest, and as the internet is highlighting somewhat impractical to enforce.  

exactly.

well. as you indicated above, it comes back to "rights". In bitcoin your right to redeem unspent outputs is enforced by secret keys which are publicly verifiable. I guess smart properties build upon that understanding and allow each party to prove certain claims publicly.

Well I can see how that argument might have some philosophical validity. But in the real world of laws and regulations, information can certainly be legally considered property. And that's all that matters.

If someone is using the address 1cocacola  can they be sued in a court for trademark infringement ?

As with any money, it exists merely as an idea. Sometimes people attribute physical objects with this idea, but that does not fundamentally change the physical object. In bitcoin's case, the physical object is the organization of information, which is ultimately what any physical object is, but in this case it is nearly infinitely adaptable to any medium. The question of "intellectual property" is ultimately one of a society's willingness to impose force and violence to maintain the illusion of "property", itself an idea that we continue to labor under despite its many flaws and associated negative outcomes. Bitcoin's unique features render it nearly unclassifiable, due to its utter reliance on secrecy and cryptography. Once the cryptographic elements of a bitcoin account/address are destroyed or compromised, it is rendered practically useless to the original user. Either the account is nearly impossible to recover due to the computational effort required to re-discover the keys, or the account is now subject to another person's use, as anyone with the keys can control any bitcoins assigned to the account.

As a direct answer, bitcoin is just like everything else. It can be thought of as virtual property. It can be thought of as actual property. Ultimately it boils down to our ideas and definition of property in the first place. And anyone paying attention recognizes that property is not an idea in the best interests of a global society.

I think it's easy to get wrapped around the axle trying to categorize Bitcoin.  The debate tends to be more about linguistics that any real contemplation about what it is.  I think of Bitcoin as a ledger in the cloud (all forms of money are a ledger system).  Bitcoin, and all forms of money (including gold), are just information (in the context of a social protocol).  Regarding property, you have to separate the concept of property from the method of determining ownership of that property.  When you own bitcoins (determined by the possession of private keys), you own a slice of the ledger in the cloud.  So, in that sense, it is very similar to property.  The method Bitcoin uses to recognize the transfer of ownership could also be used for many other forms of property (and almost certainly will be in the future).

I deliberately avoided the "property" aspect in my response because of the conceptual problems surrounding the linguistic interpretations. However here are a few other thoughts considering previous posts:
In the original attempt to define btc as  "virtual property" the normal scientific approach was undertaken. ie anything if real and true has only one correct defining attribute! however it has many,many incorrect and untrue attributes. So the approach is to define something by stating all the things which are false and the remaining single attribute is the true real "thing". Consequently property as generally understood fails because of its physical associations. But properties of btc ie: the idea and its value pass because anything subjective is by definition true. Only real though in the sense that a medium-in this case a mind must contain it and then only real in the sense of that individuals perception of that concept.
Another point to arise is the attempt to justify btc in terms of the current failing financial and economic system?. This is understandable but regrettable since the attacks and weaknesses are precisely at the point of intersection. However until widely adopted btc must live with this as we need to function in the short term in fiat. I hope longer term to deal only in btc whereby the ability to impose control from "above" is inherently imposable and autonomy is returned to the individual. reg.     

An opinion is neither true nor false, and money/property is ultimately a shared opinion.

In my opinion all words are subjective, and their understood meaning is basically a generally accepted shared subjective definition. So it depends on how you define property..

I define a property as: a scarce tangible entity, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the access to and control of has been restricted and limited

The important part of my definition is scarcity. I do not regard entities that aren't scarce as property for example such as information that can be easily and cheaply perfectly copied without causing a loss what so ever to the original medium it was carried by.



So given my definition in Bitcoin only a Bitcoin transactions(more precisely the unspent outputs as was alluded to above) fits it. It is a tangible incorporeal and scarce entity that I restricted and limited the use of by keeping my private keys secret. When someone steals my bitcoins what they really stole is the irreversible and non double spendable and therefor scarce transaction that can be made with the private key and that I have restricted and limited the use of.

So they may copy my private key which is just information which isn't really a property and that alone does nothing to me, I mean I don't experience a loss what so ever. But if they then use this private key to steal my scarce transaction then that's when the loss to me actually happens and they stole my property.

I mean if you really think about it the same happens with say a gold coin that you own. Someone may learn where you keep it and how to turn of your security measures in order to gain access but they haven't inflicted a loss on you with the access to this information alone, it's when they use this information to take possession of the scarce entity that you experience the loss i.e. theft.

In another thread I posted that this idea could be used to legally define Bitcoin.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I don't think these record entries i.e. bitcoins have value because they're part of that record but because the "space" in that record is scarce and I think it's quite irrelevant what sort of record it is. Even in games such as WoW or EvE you have scarcity. If my account is hacked (pw is information not property) someone with access to it can then destroy my tangible incorporeal scarce spaceship (my property) or they can transfer it to another character. It doesn't matter that in EVE this digital property has a virtually non existent production cost, what is important is scarcity and the items my toon owns are definitely scarce even if only artificially imposed by the designers of the game.

Come to think of it, the artificial scarcity imposed by the game designers is no different than the artificial scarcity of Bitcoin unspent outputs. The only difference is the production cost of the two which affects the time and chance for this scarcity to remain.

I strongly think that when it comes to property scarcity is the most crucial property, without it no property ownership makes a lot of sense because if a thing isn't scarce it's irrelevant if someone claims it be theirs because anyone can just get some of that thing without the claimed owner even noticing anything.

If Bitcoin database was not consistant between users and each individual had his own version of blockchain then it wouldn't have mattered if it scarce or not, but scarcity is also important, without it bitcoin would have been useless as medium of exchange.

It's hard to define what kind of scarcity is valuable. For example, namecoin is inflationary and is has value, each grain of sand is unique but it has no value.



Your definition of scarcity is possible because it relies on the feature of bitcoin database, which is consistency! The information can't be easily and cheaply copied without causing a loss because if you do, for example by forking Bitcoin then your version will be different than what everyone else has and it will have no value.


Piece of gold looks the same to everyone because laws of physics.
Bitcoin database looks the same to everyone because it solves Byzantine Generals' Problem (http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09997.html)
EVE item looks the same to everyone because game designers have only one valid version of items database.

Obviously, gold is the most robust solution in terms of consistency because it's hard to defy laws of physics, Bitcoin comes next and a centralized solution such as EVE money is least robust. The way how Bitcoin solves the problem of consistency is it's core feature, and it can be used to define it as property, for example: record in a database distributed among many people that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem (http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09997.html) is property.

To elaborate:
If we think about our universe as database that perceived the same way by everyone then ownership is access rights to certain records and stealing is unauthorized change of those records, e.g. if I own piece of gold it means that I can change the record about it's location or grant to someone else the right to change it, stealing means that someone changed it's location without my permission. The same definitions can be applied to Bitcoin.

Ownership of bitcoins means you are free to change the record by sending it to anywhere.
Stealing of bitcoins means unauthorized change of the record by sending it to an address controlled by someone else.

But thinking about our universe in such a way is not how we experience it so I really can't see the point in doing so.

Again, it doesn't matter what the tangible, corporeal or incorporeal entity is, what matters is that it is one and that it is scarce. In EVE those are spaceships as entries in a centrally managed database, in the physical world, those are gold coins for example and in Bitcoin those are the unspent outputs i.e. unspent transactions that can be spent based on a distributed database and a private key.


How I define ownership and property the above makes no sense. Perhaps you should start by defining ownership and property before you draw conclusions.

Your gut feeling tells you that bitcoins are valuable because only 21 million will ever exist, what you are missing is that those bitcoins have to exist as records in the blockchain database we all use, otherwise it has no value.


That's exactly what I did:
Property: a record in a database that is consistent among many people.
Ownership of the record: ability to rightfully change it.
Stealing of the record: unauthorized change.

If that makes no sense to you then there isn't much I can do about it.

Yeah.. it doesn't.

I'm catching up so if this post is repeat forgive me this just jumped out out at me. 

To say information is free would be a fallacy.  Information is in fact a commodity.  There is a considerable investment made by anyone wishing to learn whether it be time, sacrifice or monetary.  Information is very expensive, and highly valued by those who know how to use it. 

It being free or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it isn't scarce but can be infinitely perfectly copied at virtually no cost.

Why do think there is no cost associated with copying Bitcoins?  Every transaction must go through computations that confirms the legitimacy of that  transaction.  120 confirmations to be exact.  

The private key someone associated to Bitcoins earlier is not correct.  The public key/ private key are a part of your wallet. or bitcoin address.  This is how Bitcoins are stored and protected, but this is not a bitcoin.  In fact at one point you could send bitcoin directly to an IP address without the use of PKI.

I think before we say if bitcoin is property, we should look at where bitcoins come from.  Bitcoins are the product of an algorithm.  

While I agree that words are subjective this does not mean we can just create our own definitions to be used.  There must be a consensus for that definition.  This why we have dictionaries.  So according to Merriam-Mebster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property) Property is defined as:
1.
   a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing
   b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses
   c : virtue
   d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2
   a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate
   b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership
   c : something to which a person or business has a legal title
   d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable
   e : a book or script purchased for publication or production
3
      : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes


If we agreed to use this definition of property then Bitcoins can be considered property because they can be owned.  

Some have trouble associating Bitcoins to property because they have no physical properties. They should consider what gives Bitcoins it's value.  The products and services that can be bought, sold, or leased is what ultimately determine it's value. We may use the market (ediit: currency exchanges) as a reference, but it does not determine the value.  given this we can say that Bitcoins are representations of physical property.  Very similar to stocks, bonds, commodities, and even fiat currency.

Value is a straw man. It has nothing to do with whether something is property or not. Also you cannot compare bitcoins to stocks or legal tender, because bitcoins are not enforceable by law (you need to enforce them by mathematics).

You are suffering from confirmation bias. You're searching for all the properties which bitcoin may have in common with property, which has a very general and broad meaning. Based on your arguments I can own all the air around me.

Here's an exercise for you:

Are you reading MY words? (see what I did there). I just gave you access to a few letters. I could also send you the encrypted version if you feel that reading should be enforceable.

I found the statement of Adrian-X quite fitting, which I re-quote here:

I'm not trying to split hairs, but the air around you has physical properties.  I think comparing Bitcoins to stocks  is a more appropriate  because while stocks are represented by certificates that is not actually the stock.  The stock it is in fact the "right of ownership" and not the certificate.  The certificate is only a medium to transfer that right.   It is generally accepted that this "right of ownership" is property.  Why would it be different with Bitcoins?




Since the abandonment of the "Gold Standard" the value of currency is based off of confidence given to the government backing it and not anything physical.  The tender is used only as a physical medium to transfer that currency.  

As pointed out by the quote above - bitcoins mostly resemble the right of transfer. From that perspective, stocks are quite fitting. However bitcoins are located "lower" in the dependency hierarchy, whereas stocks, as an abstraction of company ownership, is relatively "high" on the dependency graph. Stocks need to be implemented in some form (usually a central registry). Bitcoin instead is an implementation technology.

I recommend you learn about colored bitcoins. It's a attempt to utilize the superior technology of cryptocurrencies to implement the stock metaphor. From the subtle differences between colored bitcoins and normal bitcoins you'll understand why bitcoins are not just stocks.

Thanks for the recommendation of colored Bitcoins. I'll definitely take a look.

I should have stated that I don't consider stocks to be the same as Bitcoins.  They do represent two different ideas and have different characteristics, but they are comparable if we are trying to generally classify them (Bitcoins) as property.


How something is implemented doesn't ultimately determine if it is property.  The currency (USD) I currently use is implemented in technology in many forms.  For instance, I hardly use cash.  My paycheck is automatically deposited into my bank account, then I use my debit card for most transactions.  

Good answer. I wonder if a kid ever refused to complete a school exam on the grounds that they may be stealing intellectual property.

I am not aware of a commonly accepted definition for "virtual property".  Here is an article titled "VIRTUAL PROPERTY" written in 2005, by Joshua Fairfield that attempts to define virtual property. The paper differentiates virtual property from intellectual property, and delves into the theory of virtual property in greater detail.  Although it precedes BTC I believe it applies.  

Virtual property is defined as:

"..Rivalrous, Persistent, and Interconnected Code that Mimics Real World Characteristics."
pg 1053.   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=807966


If there is a more accepted definition for virtual property please provide the source.

It's the swiss bank of 21st century

To answer OPs question according to the this article "VIRTUAL PROPERTY (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=807966)" 2005 , Joshua Farfield, Bitcoins are in fact virtual property.


" The development of virtual property as a concept also makes possible useful secured transactions.42 Possession, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is a cheap way of establishing a relationship with an interest that is quickly and commonly traded.43 The law therefore has set forth technological requirements that describe an infrastructure under which electronic chattel paper may be meaningfully “possessed” for perfection purposes.44 The relevant attributes of this electronic chattel paper are that it must be capable of being possessed by one person only, it must persist (since the value it represents must be maintained), and it must be able to be freely traded to other people who themselves can cheaply establish rights of possession.45 Electronic chattel paper therefore is rivalrous, persistent, and interconnected – and thus virtual property"

Interesting paper. With respect to URLS as "Examples of Virtual Property": Take e.g. namecoin. It allows you to CLAIM URLs using the coins generated through mining. Thus the namespace of namecoin falls within the realms of "virtual property", where individuals can claim ownership over a fraction of the available namespace. The access to database changes is managed by the same private keys which are used to protect access to the namecoins. Does that make namecoins virtual property as well? One may think so.

This indicates that there are floating boundaries with what we perceive as property and what not. E.g. If I paint you a picture and you look at it, do I own the photons which hit your eyes and create the image on your retina? Most would say no - it's the physical or virtual representation of the picture which could be considered property. But this digresses into matters of semantics...

This brings us back to information. Property in a broad sense represents a claim over information (physical or virtual). Bitcoins and namecoins are more on the implementation side for how to claim it, while stocks, URLs and namecoin database entries are more on the content side. As such, bitcoin is both virtual property and a virtual property management system.

good point, I'm think it can be argued that the characteristic of "interconnected" applies.  The fact that you can view the image and mentally save the image of that painting makes it interconnected.

As well as the characteristic of  rivalrous, since we can each take our own copy (mental image) of that painting it becomes non-rivalrous.

edit
being that it is non-rivalrous would exclude that image  from being virtual property.

Bitcoins and the Bitcoin network, even though they cannot exist without each other are mutually exclusive.  Being that the implementation and verification is the algorithm and the bitcoin is the product of that algorithm.  I think you showed this with the colored Bitcoins.  Because an identity can be established to the bitcoin. 

Also interesting point. This means, anything which can be counterfeit or "double" spent can not be virtual property (at least there should be significant cost or legal risk involved).

This would implicate that the property characteristics of bitcoins are a function of the depth in the blockchain (block chain reorganization...).

:) nice ... good catch but  not necessarily.  rivalrous is a characteristic that defines physical property. That characteristic is applied to virtual property to show that is in fact property and common law applies. I'll quote the article:

"To recap: these traits – rivalrousness, persistence, and interconnectivity – mimic real world properties. If I hold a pen, I have it and you don’t. Rivalrousness. If I put the pen down and leave the room, it is still there. That is persistence. And finally, you can all interact with the pen – with my permission, you can experience it. That is interconnectivity. Why is code trying so hard to mimic these properties? Rivalrousness gives me the ability to invest in my property without fear that other people may take what I have built.27 Persistence protects my investment by ensuring that it lasts."



As far as the image we take with us that would actually be considered intellectual property. 

I think we can agree that bitcoins full-fill all the above key characteristics. Thus one may conclude that common property law is applicable.

The remaining question for a legal system is, whether ownership should be able to be determined, without the consent of the owner. This refers to the pseudo-anonymity of bitcoin. Or in other words:
Can something be legal property if I cannot contact the owner? Would bitcoins have to be registered somewhere for it to be upgraded to virtual property?

But two or more people can have access to the same cryptographic elements that make up a bitcoin account/address. It loses rivalrousnessess then.

edit-- i just re-read your post.  You are referring to the wallet (PKI) not the actual  bitcoin.  they are 2 different things

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
if you're speaking of double spend. then the duality is  only for a very short time and not persistent . the confirmation process would determine there to be 1 owner and drop any redundant transactions.  a persistent duality would determine non-rivalrous not a timing glitch.  limitation

Multiple people can have the same Bitcoin. If I give copies of a bitcoin to several people and ask them to go find something I want and that they can keep the change, the first person that spends it ends it's existence, but before then it could belong to any of the holders.

Only 1 of those people can spend it at any given time.  Like a bank account many people can have access.  If they all tried to withdraw the balance of that account only the first successful attempt would be valid. So the actual owner of the money was the one who was able to use withdraw it.

Before the bitcoin is used any one of the holders has the potential to be the owner, but it the one that determines it's usage that is in fact the owner.  

So it is more like quantum property, which exists in a state of ownership uncertainty until it is in fact spent. This is further complicated by the fact that a person can continuously create keys and accounts indefinitely and potentially gain access to unspent coins, without the original owners knowledge or detection, and not only that, but this could lead to irrevocable loss of the coins.

Just as with all money/property, it is more of a hindrance than a help to the human species.

I thought the uncertainty principal had to with determining the position and momentum of a particle, but I'm not familiar enough to be certain.

The keys and accounts are not Bitcoins.  they are PKI.  You wouldn't say your PGP key is your email address.  They are two different things and have different functions.  If the key pair were Bitcoins then you would need to relinquish the key pair for each  transaction.   

you are correct that it is similar to what we know as money/property, but it being a hindrance is a matter of opinion. 

Either that or a far more simple explanation is that the private key is just information and the actual bitcoins, the property are the unspent outputs.

Then where does ownership come in? If the property is the unspent outputs, then everybody with a copy of the blockchain has them.

Ever heard of: Possession is nine-tenths of the law?

What you are saying is the same as saying that because everyone knows where the Mona Lisa is held everyone owns it. And yet that's not true because the picture although it's location being public is held under lock and key in a museum in Paris. It all falls back to how you define a property and how you define ownership.

Here are my definitions:
– property: a scarce tangible entity, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the access to and control of has been restricted and limited
– ownership: the freedom to restrict and limit the use of a scarce tangible, corporeal or incorporeal, entity

These definitions might not be what is generally accepted but they are what I thought of myself as the most sensible ones. And to answer your question, clearly just knowing about the unspent outputs means nothing if you don't have the information needed to turn them into inputs and spend them i.e. if you don't own them.

But doesn't being in a museum imply that everyone owns it? That's kind of the point of a museum, to share and curate a shared culture, which is ultimately owned by no one.

If everyone possesses the unspent outputs, then how many tenths of the law does that add up to? It seems like a lot of tenths. I am frightened by the idea of a rapidly inflating legal system this implies.

If multiple people possess the key information, then both simultaneously have the freedom to use the outputs, but it is not until that freedom is exercised that ownership can be computed and determined by the bitcoin protocol.

I suppose that one thing can have multiple owners, but in some cases one could be completely unaware of the other.

This is further complicated by the m-of-n scenario where multiple keys are used to manipulate one or more specific unspent outputs. How is ownership defined in that case?

The quantum description applies much better than any previous legal term, I think.

Go there and try to redeem your share then.

if Possession is 9/10ths what is the other 1/10th?  


Okay, lets take apart the premise it is possible to give parts of a Bitcoin to many people so that many people have ownership.  Fundamentally this is not possible. Bitcoins can only be associated with 1 ECDSA key at any given time that means there can be only 1 owner at any given time.  Please see the following.


"Each coin is associated with its current owner's public ECDSA key. When you send some bitcoins to someone, you create a message (transaction), attaching the new owner's public key to this amount of coins, and sign it with your private key. When this transaction is broadcast to the bitcoin network, this lets everyone know that the new owner of these coins is the owner of the new key. Your signature on the message verifies for everyone that the message is authentic. The complete history of transactions is kept by everyone, so anyone can verify who is the current owner of any particular group of coins."

- source How Bitcoins Work (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_bitcoin_works)



you can make up your own definitions to suite yourself if you like. Consider this,  having a general consensus of word (or even gesture) meanings is the only way we can communicate.  If you don't think so, then try to communicate with someone that speaks a different language than what you are familiar with.   You will be able to mimic their words, but it is not possible to communicate unless there is meaning associated with with those words.  

There have been new technical developments. Look up "pay to script hash" and related functionality.

Thanks I hadn't seen that, but this doesn't change the fact that a bitcoin cannot be owned by many people at 1 time.

As far as potential, this shouldn't add a layer of complexity.  We deal with this all the time.  to take the ealier example if I'm at a museum viewing the Mona Lisa there is potential for me to take ownership.  That potential may be extremely low because laws would be broken and for me not worth the risk, but it does exist.  Now say someone had a gun to my head.  Then that potential just increased to the point of absolute certainty I am going to take ownership.  

I'm simply astounded at the level of complexity you two seem to enjoy to conjure up to fit your complicated inapplicable concepts.

Of course multiple people can own the same bitcoins i.e. the same unspent outputs.. It's like multiple people can own 1 car. The fact that multiple people can't drive it or sell it at the same time is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is an agreement between multiple parties that the limitations and restrictions imposed on the property don't apply to them or apply to them differently.

When I compute a new address and it's private key and receive some bitcoins to it, those bitcoins i.e. the unspent outputs attached to that public key are arguably mine because by keeping the private key a secret information I have limited and restricted the use of those unspent outputs. IF one wants to respect my ownership of these bitcoins, even if they should somehow learn the private key without my permission, they cannot spend the bitcoins. However if I give them my permission and voluntarily share with them the private key then this is no different than a shared ownership of a car. Depending on the agreement of ownership once one of the owners of the bitcoins spends them, the benefits of that transaction will be divvied up between the owners as agreed just like money from a car owned by multiple people and sold would be.

Of course without multisig you open yourself up to the risk of being defrauded and robbed, but that's just the same with sharing ownership of anything else.

You are not wrong, but then we get into contract theory and the question of, is the owner the people that make up the agreement or the entity that contract created?  Which diverges from OP's original question.

edit

and by your own admission since multiple people can own a car, we do agree the car is property. This does not suggest in anyway that Bitcoins are not Virtual property. None of your arguments have been able to disprove the fact that Bitcoins are virtual-property.

So it still stands that Bitcoins are in fact virtual property.  

That fact is completely relevant. This is an example of rivalrous.  1 of the 3 characteristics used to define virtual property.  It is a characteristic that is shared with real property as well as distinguishing virtual property from intellectual property.

But this wouldn't matter to you.  Since you have stated that you will make up and apply your own definitions to suite your own viewpoints.

  

I believe this is technically incorrect. I'm not an expert on the bitcoin software, but I'm pretty sure anyone who has the keys can spend the coins.

All this arguing about what if and then is irrelevant.
What matters is that bitcoin CAN be rivalrous.

I'm trying to catch up on the argument... but seem to be a bit lost.
Why is relevant how many people can 'own' a bitcoin in the determination if is or isn't property?

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...
I mean we have for example have intellectual property which exists only in theory because it is reconized by the some jurisdiction as being 'property'

It actually doesn't,  early in the thread I had stated that by definition if something can be owned then it is property.  Then rivalrous was brought up because in a paper written on the subject it is used to define virtual property.  Then the two ideas of ownership and rivalrous became intertwined.  

You can call anything property, the trick is getting enough people to agree.

That's why I brought up intellectual property.  IP only 'exists' as property because everyone concerned agrees it is rather then any physical existance of the property.
I think simply calling bitcoins property is the easier leap then trying to extend those 'property rights' into other realms of law.  For example the bitcoin theft debate.

I think domain names can provide a good parallel in this example and have been found to be property in several cases.

Not everyone but usually mostly those who have something to gain from it and hold enough guns to be able to force their view on others. There are plenty of people like myself who think IP is hogwash.

Have a look at this...

  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=807966

I'm about half way through... but I'm not sure what you're stabbing at?  He seems to be just making the argument that virtual property need laws to protect them?  I'll have to finish it later though.

I think it really breaks down about how far you simply want to take the 'property' argument.
Are bitcoins property in the eyes of webster's?  Yes
Are bitcoins property in the eyes of the law?  I'd say in many cases yes.
Are bitcoins property treated the same way your car is?  Ok now you're going to run into trouble.  This is where the author of the paper seems to want to take things.

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess to be "comparable" to properties in the common sense. One of them is rivalrous, i.e. the CAPACITY for it to be restricted to one person only. This is provided by the bitcoin network, because an unspent output can be protected by secret keys, for an indefinite time (persistence...).

E.g. a music file CAN NOT be virtual property on that basis, because once it's copied you loose control over who has access, so you can not establish rivalrousness.  Thats why you need a different legal handle to protect artistic content.

Rarely is the law scientific about anything :P

But I guess my point was that he's just making an argument...  He isn't talking about what they are he's talking about what it should be.

I would say I agree with him in general; though one can poke holes in most arguments.  Like for example he didn't mention value.  This doesn't matter in the real world because everything no matter how trivial is still 'something' but a computer can generate digital property like crazy.  If I fork the blockchain and create 'reyalscoins' do they really deserve legal protection even if I'm the only one that uses them? (you're free to use them if you want so they'd still have 'interconnectivity')

But has anyone here actually stake out the position that they're not property? The real argument would seem to be more what laws that apply to 'normal property' as written really apply to bitcoins.  But each one of those topics could occupy an entire thread itself.  Inheritance tax for example could spawn several pages of back and forth.

Then read "logical". Logic and science go well together though :P

Rarely is the law logical about anything.

oh, but it is.
do not confuse "logic" with "common sense".

Agreed. Ideally, logic is the foundation of law, but often its application and interpretation are not.

I agree that he is making an argument, but in order define a previously undefined phrase that definition must be proven.   

As far as value, VP is a general term to encompass Domain names, URLs, Bitcoins, etc.  The definition of the general term should not hinder the value of anything specific that falls under it's scope. 

If we were trying to define Bitcoins would you want to hinder the value by definition or allow the free market to determine that value.?

Interpretation is indeed fickle, and at times defies logic.

I was just saying he's just arguing what they should be... his opinion (though well researched) is no more authoritative than either yours or mine.

Also I think you have what I was saying backwards....
A finding that something is VP does not make something valuable.  I was saying that something might need to be valuable before it can be considered virtual property.
Nothing to do with the free market...
So for example.  My kids art work is property despite being worthless simply because it -IS- something.  Paper, glue, crayon, whatever
However should virtual property be property if it’s similarly worthless?  Bitcoins are easily VP because they meet all his requirements AND have value.  But are my reaylscoins despite being identical to bitcoins in every way also property even if no one wants them?
I’m not saying I agree with that but there are certainly considerations that one might need to weigh there.  But such arguments are largely moot since I don’t think anyone is actually taking that position and arguing that bitcoins aren’t property… is there?

It has value if it CAN be destroyed. Because loss is irreversible depreciation.

(I actually would add "destructibility" to one of the key characteristics of property, which is not quite orthogonal to "persistence" as referred to in the manuscript).

If bitcoins are virtual property, does that mean bitcoin thieves should be put in virtual jail?  ;D

NO INTERNET FOR YOU, PIRATE@40.

Pirate@40 is not a thief, but committed fraud (breach of contract) - that's a huge difference from a legal perspective. However the punishment should be the same, since the effect is identical.

The problem with making value a defining characteristic is that it is subjective.  Something can have value to me, but to no one else.  Take your example, if no one bought your reaylscoins they could still be very valuable to you.  They represent time and effort you put into creating the fork and even have sentimental value.  

We can also see this with collectibles.  Have you ever seen the phrase, "I USED TO BE A MILLIONAIRE UNTIL MY MOM THREW OUT MY BASEBALL CARDS".  Well, to the mother that threw them out, they had no value.  

I always wondered what had happened to the soup nazi.  He went virtual!

I wouldn't :P
How do you destroy a bitcoin?
At the very worst sending it to a random address is more akin to put something in a safe and throwing a key then really destroying it.

Again I'm not really making that argument.  I was mealy pointing that he was making an argument and you can poke holes in any argument.  I could have pointed out the lack of scarcity of digital property instead of using value.

To be precise, in the real world, nothing really gets destroyed - just disassembled - maybe into atoms. Thus, when I mean destroyed it is equivalent to inaccessible.

LOL - talk about going to the nth degree.  :)

but seriously,  I was looking at the heist thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83794.0

and several of the heists claim the coins were either destroyed or effectively destroyed.  I can understand the latter because they can be made inaccessible, but how about the former?  How can Bitcoins be destroyed? 

They appear to be the same thing... just a lost private key.
I would say the only way they can be really destroyed would be any coins generated during a split in the block chain would be destroyed when one of the chains gets dropped.

No. What can be destroyed, in a way, is an unspent output. Once that output is turned into an input you can't do that again, so in effect it's destroyed.

When you put it this way you are trying to fit the old paradigm to the new. In a way, isn't an unspent output not destroyed but sent back to the whole as deflation. Once that output is turned into an input you can't do that again, so in effect it is of benefit to all the other Bitcoin users.

It seems to me Bitcoin corrects the function of money and has it function more like matter in the real world.

Thanks for all the thoughtful debate,


I have come to think of it as information and a right tracking system monitored through mathematics and validated on a P2P system confirmed by all users.  And the process we are going through now is an attempt to couple that system to represent economic contributions and withdrawals, so from our current perspective it helps to think of it as property but it is not in fact property, but more a participatory stewardship right.


I was moved by the understanding that Bitcoin's functioned as stewardship right more than a form of property, and as a right you can use it and give it to someone, but it can also die with you going back to the community as a whole. 

While there are lots of interesting posts on this forum, one that got my attention was the question "Has Bitcoin changed your political view?"  While my answer for me was profoundly yes, I had never heard of the libertarian movement before Bitcoin, and through exploring I discovered many libertarian flavours and lots of insightful thinking on questions I was pondering with regards to property.  Which lead to the exploring of the history of property rights, a fascinating evolution of collective understanding through the ages?

One such highlight was and I can't find the reference but, some ancient cultures defined personal property as anything that can burn, and all other things were considered communal property.  Followed by another profound understanding that all humans evolved with access to the land and through the defining of real property rights (land) and by its definition, rights were given to the title owner but takes away from everyone else (a situation requiring an authority).  Obviously Property Rights have been one of the most fundamental foundations of all forms of governance form tribalism to modem day democracies. 

In short understanding how Bitcoin fusions as a mathematically verifiable P2P monitored stewardship right, can be a catalytic paradigm shift. Properly rights are a convenient meme that functions somewhat well if you live in an infinite world and as Adam Smith supposed, you could just expand eternally by moving to the country or the new world and start the process of homesteading. While it is evident in nature, when we look at animal's territories, there is a fundamental difference between natural territorial rights and the human property rights, those territories in nature are not inherited but made available to the living, while property rights tend to accumulate in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, and the option to just move on and start again has practicality been exhausted. 

It seems to me that Bitcoin functions more like real property did for the majority of human existence, prior to our current civilisation trend, and it looks to me to be more appropriate to adjust the definition of property to function in a way similar to that of the stewardship rights given to you under the cryptocurrency system. 

That sounds similar to why I made the argument I made about why it wasn't theft to 'steal' bitcoins.
But I'd say the ball to be considered property is much lower.


You don't think a right over information doesn't make them 'yours'?
Do you not refer to the files on your computer as your files desipite their existence only as information?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property
b: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing

I'd find it silly to make an argument that they wouldn't at least fit the common english useage of the word property.  And after that it would simply be a matter of trying to determine the degree to which existing property laws apply to bitcoins.  Which is more about the wording of the law then the definition of property.

Disagree?

One of the key characteristics of property seems to be that it is discernible.
E.g. I does make sense to say that a music file belongs to me, but it can not be that a song belongs to me. The former describes the physical representation of the song, the latter describes the information which is contained.

To translate this analogy to bitcoin, we may assume that the music file is something like an access key to the song. Without the file, I cannot retrieve the song. The key difference here is that a song is non-rivalrous information (because it can be consumed by more than one person at the same time), and thus strictly speaking can not be property. However, what we can say is that the music file represents a right to consume the song. Thus the argument is how that right was obtained. Bitcoin instead can be rivalrous information. Thus it fits better the description of property in the common language.

Of course a song can be property; a copyright is part of intellectual property law.  The fact it be consumed by more than one person at a time doesn't change that.

I don't understand this obsession with rivalrousness; property is rooted in ownership not the exclusivity of consumption.
The author of the virtual property paper was simply giving an argument for his legal definition of virtual property not for the existance of property in general and espcially not the 'common langage' usage of the word property.

That is to say; the question is "Are bitcoins property" not "Are bitcoins virtual property by the arguments made by Joshua Fairfield writing in the Boston University Law Review" (though both are yes... )

The term intellectual property is quite a fix.

From the wiki page:
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion." He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights".[33] Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term.

A song is to be protected by copyright.

I agree thanks, I have very much enjoyed this discussion.  


in order to have stewardship rights, one must be a steward.  Being a steward indicates that they have control over some sort of  property, usually currency.  


Please bear with me on this:  

If a law was passed in the near future requiring everyone to deposit their promissory notes into a bank.  Then by the new law they would be issued a mandatory debit card and online access to the account.

Once all of the notes were collected and no others existed, they are all destroyed.  Even though the online register still shows a balance, would this act of destroying the notes deplete the balance in the accounts?   So, what then is this currency we use and is undisputedly regarded as property and protected as such?

It could be argued that the currency is now the debit card, but if I destroy that debit card has my account been wiped?  I think we can agree the debit card is only a means to disperse said currency just as the promissory note is.  Neither of which were actually the currency itself.  

In fact currency is defined as, "a system of money (monetary units) in common use, especially in a nation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency), and does not need to be anything tangible.



So if the fiat currency we all use is regarded has property and is no more tangible than bitcoins. Why is it such a leap to regard bitcoins as property?

Oh please RMS is one step above internet troll (even if he is a troll on our side). It's like quoting Rush Limbaugh.
If we're sticking with wiki as a soruce

Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation.[4] When the administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in 1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The organisation subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by treaty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention),[2] and it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.[5]

Intellectual Property has been an accepted term for over 100 years.  If he wants to argue aginst certain abuses of IP that's all well and good but arguing aginst the term is just nonsesne.


And I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make...
Do you think that bitcoins aren't property or are you just trying to argue something else at this point?

No - as mentioned above I think bitcoins are information about rights which full-fill the key characteristics we associate with property. The novelty about bitcoin versus other kinds of digital content (e.g. music files) is that ownership is enforceable through the PKI. If you need a law which prohibits others from using your digital content there is not a strong sense of ownership - it's like trying to sell 2 hours of sunlight a day - you don't own the sun - but you may be able to control the access to sunlight. But that doesn't mean it's not shining.

The problem I have with the way "intellectual property" is used is that it is applied towards items which do not possess key characteristics of properties out of the box. Then you have complicated laws and PIPA and SOPA which do more harm than good. Items which do not possess characteristics of property can be considered to be in the public domain, where you are the rightful person to receive monetary contributions. I think that's what Stallman is getting at. Punishing people for watching a movie, or sharing a song for free is nonsense if there was no intended money flow or business. It serves no purpose.

Anyway - that's all not a problem with bitcoin - because ownership can be enforced through PKI.

No?  No what?
No. You think that bitcoins aren't property?  IE they are property.
No. You think that bitcoins aren't propety? (but don't understand double negitives)And they aren't property?
No. You are just trying to argue something else at this point?  Yet continue to argue?
.....
/confused


But I think you're think you're talking about the second one...  and you think they aren't property....
So rolling with that.
You just proved yourself wrong.  If they fullfill they key requirments to be property then they are in fact property.

Here are the top 3 defintions of property from google.
Which do you feel doesn't cover bitcoins?

1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/property

b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Law the right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/property

Bullshit. For something to be property, it requires a claim of ownership. For something to be ABLE to be property is has to possess characteristics which enable the establishment of ownership. The first requires the second to be true - not the other way around. These are two disjunct propositions.

Otherwise I must conclude that you - as a person - are property. Now - you may say to this is correct and you own yourself. However, the term property only makes sense in a relational manner. Thus a property belonging to itself doesn't make any sense.
Also the association of people with property is kind of outlawed in modern society which abandoned slavery. Apparently some societies eventually decided that there are certain things which SHOULD NOT be claimable as property.

I think bitcoins possess key characteristics to establish ownership, and thus can serve as property in the common sense. And because it can, it will be treated as property.

So what you're saying is.... that for something to be owned it must be ownable.  What kind of statment is that?
For something to be valuable it must have value. 
For something to be breakable it must be able to be broken.
What is this fun with grammer day?
http://wordinfo.info/unit/2365/ip:1

Then you bring up owning people as property, but then immediate discount your own argument by stating that people can't be owned.
Bitcoins can be owned and are ownable... so what point are you trying to make?????

So wait you do think they are property?  Then why do you keep arguing pointless nuances about unrelated topics?

You get the relationships wrong. Here's the correct answer:
For something to have value it must be valuable.
For something to be broken it must be breakable.

I am illustrating to you that characteristics do not mandate treatment. Doing otherwise would fall in line with a naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) which you seem to be doing here. Property is not purely derived from physical characteristics but is bound by social standards. However, you can establish which characteristics are necessary for something to act as property - and that's what was done in part in the manuscript which was cited earlier.

You don't get it. I can't help you. Note the subtle difference between "treated as" and "are".

If you really think that matters it's time to go back to grammer school.
Or prehaps
It's time to go back to grammer school if you really think that matters.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  Read your link again. Read the first damn paragraph FFS.
Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable".
What does that have to do with anything?
Property is not dervied from physical charactersitics it is derviced from the concept of ownership.  If you can own it it's your property.  Is that really too complex for you to understand?
My yard is my property because I own it.  Antarctica despite being exactly the same physical charactersitics as my land is not property because a bunch of countries got together and said NO you can't own this.

So you accept the rest of the world will treat them as property... but you're content to be wrong because you know they aren't?

If you reverse the logic of this sentence would it make sense?

I give up - you win.

Would this sentence make sense if you reverse the logic?
You win - I give up.

Yep makes perfect sense.  You're stupid.