Are Bitcoin's virtual property?

[Adrian-x]

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?

[1715605960]

1715605960

[1715605960]

1715605960

[1715605960]

1715605960

[reg]

"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

[Jutarul]

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.

[Adrian-x]

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,

[bitfreak!]

Given that, bitcoins are not property, but information

Why can't information be property?

[Adrian-x]

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 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.  

[Jutarul]

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.

exactly.

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,

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.

[bitfreak!]

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.  

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.

[Monster Tent]

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

[LightRider]

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.

[Steve]

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).

[reg]

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.     

[LightRider]

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

[hazek]

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.

[Serith]

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. 

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

...
bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.

[hazek]

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

...
bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.

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.

[Serith]

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

...
bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.

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.

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.

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
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 is property.

[Serith]

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 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.

[hazek]

If we think about our universe as database that perceived the same way by everyone

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.

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.

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

[Serith]

it doesn't matter what the tangible, corporeal or incorporeal entity is, what matters is that it is one and that it is scarce.

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.

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.

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

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.