Are Bitcoin's virtual property?

[Jutarul]

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).

I wouldn't
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.

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.

[1715236485]

1715236485

[1715236485]

1715236485

[1715236485]

1715236485

[1715236485]

1715236485

[1715236485]

1715236485

[wdBTCtrader]

To be precise, in the real world, nothing really gets destroyed - just disassembled - maybe into atoms.

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? 

[reyals]

To be precise, in the real world, nothing really gets destroyed - just disassembled - maybe into atoms.

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.

[hazek]

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.

[Adrian-x]

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.

[Adrian-x]

Thanks for all the thoughtful debate,

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[reyals]

Thanks for all the thoughtful debate,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Jutarul]

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.

[reyals]

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... )

[Jutarul]

Of course a song can be property; a copyright is part of intellectual property law.

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

Thanks for all the thoughtful debate,

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

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.  

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", 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?

[reyals]

Of course a song can be property; a copyright is part of intellectual property law.

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.

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?

[Jutarul]

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.

[reyals]

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.

full-fill the key characteristics we associate with property

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

[Jutarul]

full-fill the key characteristics we associate with property

You just proved yourself wrong.  If they fullfill they key requirments to be property then they are in fact 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.

[Jutarul]

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
...
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

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.

[reyals]

full-fill the key characteristics we associate with property

You just proved yourself wrong.  If they fullfill they key requirments to be property then they are in fact 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.

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??

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

[Jutarul]

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

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.

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??

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.

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

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

[reyals]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Jutarul]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.