Are Bitcoin's virtual property?

[hazek]

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...

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

[reyals]

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...

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.

[hazek]

IP only 'exists' as property because everyone concerned agrees it is rather then any physical existance of the property.

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...

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.

Have a look at this...

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

[reyals]

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...

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.

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.

[Jutarul]

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...

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.

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.

[reyals]

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

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.

[Jutarul]

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess

Rarely is the law scientific about anything

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

[LightRider]

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess

Rarely is the law scientific about anything

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

Rarely is the law logical about anything.

[2weiX]

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess

Rarely is the law scientific about anything

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

Rarely is the law logical about anything.

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

[LightRider]

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess

Rarely is the law scientific about anything

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

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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

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.

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.?

[wdBTCtrader]

The paper establishes a scientific basis on what characteristics a virtual property must possess

Rarely is the law scientific about anything

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

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.

Interpretation is indeed fickle, and at times defies logic.

[reyals]

.....
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.

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.?

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?

[Jutarul]

.....
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.

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.?

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).

[foggyb]

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

NO INTERNET FOR YOU, PIRATE@40.

[Jutarul]

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

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.

[wdBTCtrader]

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.  

[wdBTCtrader]

NO INTERNET FOR YOU, PIRATE@40.

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

[reyals]

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).

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.

The problem with making value a defining characteristic is that it is subjective.  Something can have value to me, but to know 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. 

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.