Are Bitcoin's virtual property?

[hazek]

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

Yeah.. it doesn't.

[1715087055]

1715087055

[1715087055]

1715087055

[1715087055]

1715087055

[1715087055]

1715087055

[wdBTCtrader]

Given that, bitcoins are not property, but information

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 presenting 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 ownership and apply that meme to the concept of information, it is intellectually dishonest, and as the internet is highlighting somewhat impractical to enforce. 

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. 

[hazek]

Given that, bitcoins are not property, but information

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 presenting 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 ownership and apply that meme to the concept of information, it is intellectually dishonest, and as the internet is highlighting somewhat impractical to enforce. 

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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.  

[wdBTCtrader]

Given that, bitcoins are not property, but information

Why can't information be property?

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.

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 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.

[Jutarul]

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 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:

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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.  

[Jutarul]

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?

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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.  

[cbeast]

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

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

[wdBTCtrader]

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.

[johnyj]

It's the swiss bank of 21st century

[wdBTCtrader]

To answer OPs question according to the this article "VIRTUAL PROPERTY" 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"

[Jutarul]

To answer OPs question according to the this article "VIRTUAL PROPERTY" 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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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...

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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.

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. 

[Jutarul]

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

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...).

[wdBTCtrader]

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. 

[Jutarul]

"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. ... Rivalrousness gives me the ability to invest in my property without fear that other people may take what I have built."

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?

[LightRider]

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