Are Bitcoin private property

[Superzpay]

My opinion is that bitcoins are private property and if someone obtains your private key and takes your bitcoins without permission, they are stealing. The problem is getting the authorities to prosecute.

You are right but no one is able to give any punishment to that person because the governments have not approved bitcoin and the other point is that bitcoin is anonymous currency and no one know the owner of addresses.

[1714779660]

1714779660

[1714779660]

1714779660

[1714779660]

1714779660

[eaLiTy]

Bitcoin is a smart property if you want an explanation what smart property is all about read it here ,if you own the private key of a particular address then it means it is your private property as no one can take over your account unless and until you reveal the password.

[Dora Doll]

My opinion is that bitcoins are private property and if someone obtains your private key and takes your bitcoins without permission, they are stealing. The problem is getting the authorities to prosecute.

You are right but no one is able to give any punishment to that person because the governments have not approved bitcoin and the other point is that bitcoin is anonymous currency and no one know the owner of addresses.

yes government will not take any action for stealing the private key but i think it is also not good morally and stealing private key of a person is not feeling good.

[zodin]

yes bitcoin is really a private property it do not belong to any any and no one has the right to take it from you and it only belong to you, therefore it is really a private property not of the any state or government.

[hurain]

yes bitcoin is  a private property and there is no doubt about this, as not a group or forum or any other government can claim bitcoins their own property therefore it is the property of those people who are owning it.

[markyminer]

Bitcoin is a smart property if you want an explanation what smart property is all about read it here ,if you own the private key of a particular address then it means it is your private property as no one can take over your account unless and until you reveal the password.

yes that is a fact that every own has the right to use their bitcoin according to their own wishes and there is no restriction on it, therefore we can say that bitcoin is a private property and it is also a private currency.

[wahb]

i think yes bitcoin is a private currency, as every one is the owner of such bitcoin which he has in his wallet, and he has fully right to use it according to his own well and no one has the right to take it from you, therefore it is a private currency and long belong to any government or a group.

[abhishek.g]

It is quite irrelevant who sends bitcoins to whom and  claims to have his own bitcoins when it comes to privacy. When you buy bitcoins you reserve the right to send it or keep it as long as you want. You have either bought it or earned it by offering some kind of services and till bitcoin vanishes it will be regarded as a private property.

[AgentofCoin]

No, bitcoin is not private property since users are not granted any property rights
from the Bitcoin blockchain or any other related system, such as the developers.
People who regard bitcoin as a private property have no understanding of law or
Bitcoin in general.

If a users of Bitcoin has purchased bitcoin, it does not grant the buyer any rights.
If a users of Bitcoin has private key control of bitcoin, it does not grant the controller any rights.
If a user participates within the Bitcoin network, it is done at their own risk and without any guarantees.

Legal and technical ownership or possession of bitcoin within the Bitcoin network does not exist.
You can not own a ledger entry within a decentralized blockchain.

Until a government creates a law that defines what rights Bitcoin users have, they have none.

[eckmar]

If we take definition of private property from wiki:

Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2][3] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption. Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's political system.

Well we can be sure that bitcoin falls under non-governmental, however I I think that bitcoin is private property in countries where it's recognized as any form of currency (Like in US)

The U.S. Treasury classified bitcoin as a convertible decentralized virtual currency in 2013.[46] A Magistrate Judge of a Texas U.S. District Court classified bitcoin as a currency

So if bitcoin is not classified as private property in countries like that, does that mean that money is not private property too ?

[AgentofCoin]

If we take definition of private property from wiki:

Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2][3] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption. Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's political system.

Well we can be sure that bitcoin falls under non-governmental, however I I think that bitcoin is private property in countries where it's recognized as any form of currency (Like in US)

The U.S. Treasury classified bitcoin as a convertible decentralized virtual currency in 2013.[46] A Magistrate Judge of a Texas U.S. District Court classified bitcoin as a currency

So if bitcoin is not classified as private property in countries like that, does that mean that money is not private property too ?

Bitcoin is only classified as such in the US for taxation purposes.
The US does not grant bitcoin users any property rights or anything beyond.
That would be impossible without direct regulation of the blockchain.
In order for bitcoin to be a property, it would need legal control over the blockchain.

Money is not normally private property, it is owned and controlled by the government's treasuries.
Most governments retain all rights of the money that is attributable to you, so there is no true ownership.
They allow you to hold and use it as legal tender only for the purpose of commerce.
They reserve all rights and can take it away from you depending on the circumstances.

Unless the money you are referring to is old paper/coin collectibles, you do not have the same
legal property rights as like holding land property.

[susila_bai]

I'm talking about the money kind of bitcoin.

Some situations where the bitcoin status of being a private property or not could arise:

> A mistakenly sends bitcoins to B, and A finds out who B is.
> A mistakenly shows his private keys to B (by just saying it), and A finds out who B is.
> B executes a replay attack on A.
> B, by an practical impossible luck, creates a private key that had founds that belonged to A already.
> B sends money to A (and A sends "something" or some information to B). Then, we don't know why, everyone decides to change their Bitcoin rules and the result is that A can't get to spend his money in the new version.

I started an article (here) trying to defend the idea that bitcoin is not private property, therefore all of the examples above couldn't be classified as theft or robbery (of private property).

What do you think?

What you are telling is possible only with fiat currency in some points but in bitcoins once sent you cannot find who is the receiver with the wallet address. Bitcoin is a private property what you are owning.

And it is a theft if you are taking anything from anyone with out their permission. but mistakenly sent is not theft and if you can find the receiver then you can ask him and if he is willing to give is ok if not you can do nothing

[AgentofCoin]

I'm talking about the money kind of bitcoin.

Some situations where the bitcoin status of being a private property or not could arise:

> A mistakenly sends bitcoins to B, and A finds out who B is.
> A mistakenly shows his private keys to B (by just saying it), and A finds out who B is.
> B executes a replay attack on A.
> B, by an practical impossible luck, creates a private key that had founds that belonged to A already.
> B sends money to A (and A sends "something" or some information to B). Then, we don't know why, everyone decides to change their Bitcoin rules and the result is that A can't get to spend his money in the new version.

I started an article (here) trying to defend the idea that bitcoin is not private property, therefore all of the examples above couldn't be classified as theft or robbery (of private property).

What do you think?

What you are telling is possible only with fiat currency in some points but in bitcoins once sent you cannot find who is the receiver with the wallet address. Bitcoin is a private property what you are owning.

And it is a theft if you are taking anything from anyone with out their permission. but mistakenly sent is not theft and if you can find the receiver then you can ask him and if he is willing to give is ok if not you can do nothing

You are talking ignorant nonsense garbage just to meet your daily sig spam quota.

Legal private property does not exist in Bitcoin, that is contrary to the system's design.
Legal theft does not exist in Bitcoin, that is contrary to the system's design.

If it was so, then Bitcoin has failed in it original design and purpose and would be currently regulated.

[sportis]

         The issue of property is particularly serious but as all legal issues so this falls under the legislation of any country. As an example I bring that in countries - members of European Union sellers of bitcoin are not obliged to pay VAT after the transaction of  buying and selling bitcoins because according the EU legislation the bitcoin is not considered currency because is not issued by credit institutions (fiat money). So as regards the ownership status how someone can prove it knowing that according its design is decentralized and irreversible?

[nikkisnowe]

Of course bitcoin is considered private property.  I think some of the previous posters are getting hung up on the idea of whether bitcoin can be used as a form of currency in various jurisdictions as their definition of private property.  Whether it meets that definition or not, it would still be considered private property.  In most jurisdictions it would be considered a form of intangible asset.  Intangible assets such as patents and copyrights aren't based on a physical paper granting it to a specific holder, but rather the right to enforce a right of ownership whether they physically have a physical certificate or not.  A previous poster incoherently rambled on about rights to bitcoin and how the blockchain din't grant rights etc however I think he was missing the point.  Holders have enforced their rights to ownership of bitcoin already.  One such example is the vast majority of the holders of bitcoin involved in the Mt. Gox collapse have successfully shown through the bankruptcy proceedings that they have a property interest in their stolen bitcoins.  Whether they're ever returned to them is yet to be determined, however they do have a property interest in the bitcoins that were stolen.  Since bitcoin is a fungible item they are not entitled (nor would they care) that the specific coins that were initially added to their account be returned, but they are entitled to the amount that was in the account.       
Even if a bitcoin holder by some chance was a citizen of a country which for some reason didn't consider bitcoin a property asset, they would be still be considered a property interest in a jurisdiction where it was.  (If there is a country where this exists, please enlighten me, and I am not referring to where a country has determined that bitcoin is a medium of exchange or currency, but rather an intangible property asset.)  An analogy would be that of business-method patents.  Most business-method patents are not recognized in the EU yet a EU citizen can still hold such a patent and have it enforced in a jurisdiction here it is recognized such as the US.   In short, Bitcoin is considered private property.

[AgentofCoin]

...A previous poster incoherently rambled on about rights to bitcoin and how the blockchain din't grant rights etc however I think he was missing the point.  Holders have enforced their rights to ownership of bitcoin already.  

I assume you are referring to me as I am the only poster who has stated that
Bitcoin does not grant any rights to users. I would refer you to intangible property
such as virtual goods and you will see the law is not as clear as you are inferring it to be.
It is an extremely complicated issue that some of the best lawyers can not yet unravel.

What you have failed to understand and may be due to my "incoherent rambling" is that
Bitcoin was designed in a manner so that no one can legally own bitcoins. That is how the
system was technically designed and the reason behind it being currently unregulatable.
You have skipped over your legal explanation of that aspect of the system, and jumped to
conclude it must be a private property because people have litigated it as such within a few
jurisdictions where the defendant was an exchange or an unlicensed money transmitter or etc.

One such example is the vast majority of the holders of bitcoin involved in the Mt. Gox collapse have successfully shown through the bankruptcy proceedings that they have a property interest in their stolen bitcoins.  Whether they're ever returned to them is yet to be determined, however they do have a property interest in the bitcoins that were stolen.  

What you have failed to add is that Mt.Gox was a company and regulated exchange that performed
transactions with banking institutions. Because of that single aspect, users who held their coins in Mt.Gox
could find them liable for their losses, whether they are a legal property or not. That issue is irrelevant.
These bitcoin users only had any rights which could be enforced upon in a Court, due to Mt.Gox agreeing
and thus legally carrying responsibility for those user's coins. Without a thirdparty failure or theft, there are
no rights or an entity to enforce against.

Legal question: If your coins are stolen from your sole controlled address, can you sue the devs
to get them to reverse the stolen private property back into your possession? Are they legally obligated
to reverse thefts of private property coins on the blockchain?

Its seems you would argue yes. Are you aware the devs are voluntary and provide no guarantees?
Are you aware that by participating within the Bitcoin network, you have waived any rights or claims?

It seems you want your cake and to eat it too. We can't have an unregulated Bitcoin blockchain and also
have a private property that carries all the rights that follows. One must supplant the other.
Until a government gets regulative controls within the Bitcoin network there are no enforceable rights.

...
Even if a bitcoin holder by some chance was a citizen of a country which for some reason didn't consider bitcoin a property asset, they would be still be considered a property interest in a jurisdiction where it was.  (If there is a country where this exists, please enlighten me, and I am not referring to where a country has determined that bitcoin is a medium of exchange or currency, but rather an intangible property asset.)  An analogy would be that of business-method patents.  Most business-method patents are not recognized in the EU yet a EU citizen can still hold such a patent and have it enforced in a jurisdiction here it is recognized such as the US.   In short, Bitcoin is considered private property.

It is clear from this statement that you don't really understand the difference between bitcoin being
held in your sole control within the blockchain and when you have transferred your control to another
party (banks/exchanges). Bitcoin users have no rights unless they defer their control to regulated
financial institutions. Bitcoin users rights then do not come from the protocol itself, but from the
exchange's legal obligation to their "customers".

Bitcoin can not be property unless you transfer that bitcoin to a thirdparty storage system
who is obligated to ensure that properties safety. If they fail, you sue them, since there is no
one else to enforce your "rights" upon.

When you argue a bitcoin is a private property, you are ignoring why governments are taking a
backseat to that aspect and also that the blockchain was designed to be immutable, public, free to use,
use at your own risk, experimental system that is based on your own ability to protect your private keys.
Now you want to have rights so that you may enforce upon others due to your own incompetence.

Edit: If you want user's rights or consumer protections, then Bitcoin is not for you.
Becareful what you wish for, because I'm not sure you know what your desire will ultimately lead to.

[kryptqnick]

Firstly, I think it is absolutely impossible to generate the same key that there already is. Secondly, as for Bitcoin being property, I suppose it depends on our attitude to it and legal status. We can behave with bitcoin as if it was our toy or car or anything else, or can think of it as of a currency. Af for legal status, in Venezuela Bitcoin is officially property.

[crazycatwoman03]

I'm talking about the money kind of bitcoin.

Some situations where the bitcoin status of being a private property or not could arise:

> A mistakenly sends bitcoins to B, and A finds out who B is.
> A mistakenly shows his private keys to B (by just saying it), and A finds out who B is.
> B executes a replay attack on A.
> B, by an practical impossible luck, creates a private key that had founds that belonged to A already.
> B sends money to A (and A sends "something" or some information to B). Then, we don't know why, everyone decides to change their Bitcoin rules and the result is that A can't get to spend his money in the new version.

I started an article (here) trying to defend the idea that bitcoin is not private property, therefore all of the examples above couldn't be classified as theft or robbery (of private property).

What do you think?

I don't think you can call it a private property. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency which means that it is a digital based currency. Maybe if you have bitcoin then you decided to convert it and have it as a paper money in your wallet. You may call it as "private property" as soon as you possessed it. You may sell it, trade it, invest it and perform transactions using bitcoin, in other words,  you have control over it but it is not as private as you may want it to be.

[1.btcwonder]

The coins, on the off chance that they are justified regardless of any fiat cash, all that is quite recently some theoretical thoughts...
what's more, the main thing you truly have physical control of is the reality you have the watchword to decode that piece of the exchange chain. Each nation, state, purview, and so forth have their own specific manners of characterizing bitcoin. Check with yours and see what you find. Anyhow your region laws, having the private key to your bitcoin is basically owning assets.

[Xanxus024]

I'm not considering bitcoin is a private property. Bitcoin is only a property that cannot taken away. As long as you have your bitcoin and the private key you can use it to transact or safely  to pass person to person.