An Argument for Bitcoin as Private Property

[Oilacris]

For me  you bitcoin would be  you  own private property  for sure because  no one could able  to  touch  i but you  but  in terms  of legalization   it would be  an other  thing though   because  if someone  gets  you bitcoin  possesion you cant really file a case  againts  with it  because   bitcoin  is  not legal on some  countries.

[1714186375]

1714186375

[1714186375]

1714186375

[1714186375]

1714186375

[Harlot]

Yes it is a private property as  if you use it, automatically it will be deducted in your wallet and it will be impossible to double spend that kind of amount. Also the security,pin ,codes protecting your wallets means that you own it and you are trying to protect it. Also when you die it is impossible to be use that is if you did not give your codes before dying.

[JasonXG]

The part about what will happen if you pass away is very cleber. I think people should have their passphrase and eberying printed and kept in the safe. If they die their family know its in the safe. No point on wasting good bitcoin

[franky1]

I agree in part.

My issue is I think you can never have any rights toward bitcoin outside of regulated licensed
bitcoin exchanges. In a way, the bitcoins in our wallets are a form of lease, not ownership,
and the leasor is the bitcoin blockchain itself. I control the bitcoins, but I can never legally own them
or have a property rights toward them, since they are unregistered and unregulated.

yep, its doesnt register your birth certificate or name or social security number. so its not 'official' ownership. thats why i conceded to the term possession. which is not out right ownership. just deemed authorised to use if you have the keys to use it.

If someone stole my bitcoins and I wasn't negligent, in theory, someone stole the blockchain's
property and the blockchain has responsibility to take action and investigate. Since the blockchain
isn't a living entity but just running code, it only cares about the private key control, so it automatically
determines that I'm no longer the rightful owner, the thief is, whether that is moral or not. It is an
instant adjudication without human intervention or desposition.

again making it more closer to 'possession'. whoever posesses the keys to use it can use it.
though the ledger doesnt care who moved it. outside of the blockchain in a court you can attempt to legally(morally) prove your case of who deserves it and punish the party who used it immorally.

I think Bitcoin/bitcoin will never fit within our well defined (thousands of years worth) understanding
of "own" or "possess", but can only conform to a "temporary control" or "lease" which grants no ownership.

yep, again ..possession. which is not out right ownership. just deemed authorised to use if you have the keys to use it.

Or, I'm thinking too much and will be proven very wrong in a few years. Lol.
All I know for sure is that Satoshi created a great puzzle on many different levels.

yea, its hard to pin it down to old terms. but atleast getting a close approximation helps the future determine the new terms
network (diverse/distributed ledger and no central location of rule)=no control, no leader, no authority.
coin=possession based on key holder
satoshi=commodity
btc=asset

[Snorek]

Even experts are confused and can't come up with clear definition of bitcoin. According to US law - IRS treats Bitcoin as property.

Not that long ago IRS issued guidance with info that they will treat all virtual currencies - Bitcoin included - as property for federal tax purposes.

Meanwhile FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) treats Bitcoin as a currency... and  then we have another agency - Commodity Futures Trading Commission - for them Bitcoin is a commodity!

[AgentofCoin]

...

I think Bitcoin/bitcoin will never fit within our well defined (thousands of years worth) understanding
of "own" or "possess", but can only conform to a "temporary control" or "lease" which grants no ownership.

yep, again ..possession. which is not out right ownership. just deemed authorised to use if you have the keys to use it.
...

Possession may be the only term that exists currently to describe it, but I still think its incorrect.

For example, if the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, never to return, do you still possess
those bitcoins? No, you do not. You only possess the private keys. The bitcoins are only owned by
the blockchain, which grants no guarantees or rights to users or its token (or itself), and is entirely
virtual. Having possession of bitcoins would imply that the blockchain granted you rights that it
specifically denies granting.

So, when you "possessed" your bitcoins, in reality you never took any type of possession since they
never left their owner's "hands". In fact, transferring your bitcoins is performed within the owner and by
the owner and never outside the owner (unless in a third-party system). When you hold the private keys
to an address, that is the only possession that you may "possess" since it exists inside and outside the system,
whether that system is active or deactivated. But possessing those PKs does not automatically imply possession
of its contents, since the owner never granted rights to bitcoin possession itself.

So from a simple point of view, yes you possess those coins, but from a technical/legal point of view,
no one possesses any coins other than the blockchain itself. Humans (and one day AI) are only a means
for bitcoin to transfer itself. We are the property being used and granting rights to the blockchain, IMO.

If it must be a possession, I'd call it a false possession or deceptive possession.
Users who believe they have been granted rights should know that the opposite is true.

[lixer]

For me  you bitcoin would be  you  own private property  for sure because  no one could able  to  touch  i but you  but  in terms  of legalization   it would be  an other  thing though   because  if someone  gets  you bitcoin  possesion you cant really file a case  againts  with it  because   bitcoin  is  not legal on some  countries.

Even if bitcoin is not legal in a particular country and someone get access to your computer and stole it, I believe you can still challenge the person in the court because getting access to someone's computer without authorization is a serious criminal offence on its own and as per basic human rights.

[Carlton Banks]

If it must be a possession, I'd call it a false possession or deceptive possession.
Users who believe they have been granted rights should know that the opposite is true.

"Ask not, what the blockchain can do for you, ask what you can do for the blockchain"

[franky1]

Possession may be the only term that exists currently to describe it, but I still think its incorrect.

For example, if the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, never to return, do you still possess
those bitcoins? No, you do not. You only possess the private keys. The bitcoins are only owned by
the blockchain, which grants no guarantees or rights to users or its token (or itself), and is entirely
virtual. Having possession of bitcoins would imply that the blockchain granted you rights that it
specifically denies granting.

So, when you "possessed" your bitcoins, in reality you never took any type of possession since they
never left their owner's "hands". In fact, transferring your bitcoins is performed within the owner and by
the owner and never outside the owner (unless in a third-party system). When you hold the private keys
to an address, that is the only possession that you may "possess" since it exists inside and outside the system,
whether that system is active or deactivated. But possessing those PKs does not automatically imply possession
of its contents, since the owner never granted rights to bitcoin possession itself.

So from a simple point of view, yes you possess those coins, but from a technical/legal point of view,
no one possesses any coins other than the blockchain itself. Humans (and one day AI) are only a means
for bitcoin to transfer itself. We are the property being used and granting rights to the blockchain, IMO.

If it must be a possession, I'd call it a false possession or deceptive possession.
Users who believe they have been granted rights should know that the opposite is true.

car keys.
if you posess the car keys its deemed you can use the car.
but you dont physically have the car in your pocket.. it is on the road(blockchain).
it is too big to be in your pocket. it will always be on the road.

and a repossession company(virus/hacker) can get a court order(trojan) to move the car off the road by either changing the locks(moving to their key). or they send the car to a destruction yard so no one uses it(address with no key).

if an earthquake/tsunami swallowed up all the roads and cars. then you do not posess the car anymore even if you have the key

but as long as the car is accessible to the road and you have the car key, you possess the car
ownership is a separate thing and more complex and thus i think ownership does not fit bitcoins terminology

but yes, even i said possession is not a perfect term. but a closer term than "ownership".
ownership and possession are not the same thing.
as ownership deems you have rights which we both agree is very questionable. possession just deems your simply able to use.
but again still not perfect term, just closer approximation

[AgentofCoin]

If it must be a possession, I'd call it a false possession or deceptive possession.
Users who believe they have been granted rights should know that the opposite is true.

"Ask not, what the blockchain can do for you, ask what you can do for the blockchain"

Lol. Yes, I guess I agree with that.

I pledge allegiance to the Bitcoin blockchain, of the United Nodes of our
Network, and to Decentralization for which why we exist, one chain, under
Satoshi, immutable, divisible and fungible for all!

Possession may be the only term that exists currently to describe it, but I still think its incorrect.

For example, if the Bitcoin network disappeared tomorrow, never to return, do you still possess
those bitcoins? No, you do not. You only possess the private keys. The bitcoins are only owned by
the blockchain, which grants no guarantees or rights to users or its token (or itself), and is entirely
virtual. Having possession of bitcoins would imply that the blockchain granted you rights that it
specifically denies granting.

So, when you "possessed" your bitcoins, in reality you never took any type of possession since they
never left their owner's "hands". In fact, transferring your bitcoins is performed within the owner and by
the owner and never outside the owner (unless in a third-party system). When you hold the private keys
to an address, that is the only possession that you may "possess" since it exists inside and outside the system,
whether that system is active or deactivated. But possessing those PKs does not automatically imply possession
of its contents, since the owner never granted rights to bitcoin possession itself.

So from a simple point of view, yes you possess those coins, but from a technical/legal point of view,
no one possesses any coins other than the blockchain itself. Humans (and one day AI) are only a means
for bitcoin to transfer itself. We are the property being used and granting rights to the blockchain, IMO.

If it must be a possession, I'd call it a false possession or deceptive possession.
Users who believe they have been granted rights should know that the opposite is true.

car keys.
if you posess the car keys its deemed you can use the car.
but you dont physically have the car in your pocket.. it is on the road(blockchain).
it is too big to be in your pocket. it will always be on the road.

and a repossession company(virus/hacker) can get a court order(trojan) to move the car off the road by either changing the locks(moving to their key). or they send the car to a destruction yard so no one uses it(address with no key).

if an earthquake/tsunami swallowed up all the roads and cars. then you do not posess the car anymore even if you have the key

but as long as the car is accessible to the road and you have the car key, you possess the car
ownership is a separate thing and more complex and thus i think ownership does not fit bitcoins terminology

but yes, even i said possession is not a perfect term. but a closer term than "ownership".
ownership and possession are not the same thing.
as ownership deems you have rights which we both agree is very questionable. possession just deems your simply able to use.
but again still not perfect term, just closer approximation

Are the car keys in your example the bitcoins or the privatekey? Or both?
I think you can "possess" the privatekey, but the "possession" of the bitcoins are illusory.

I guess using your example, I would say that the radio in the car is the blockchain.
The carkeys (privatekey) gets me in to change the stations, but I can't possess the radio signals.
That is how I see it. Of course, how the legislators will see it, is what is most important.

[franky1]

Are the car keys in your example the bitcoins or the privatekey? Or both?
I think you can "possess" the privatekey, but the "possession" of the bitcoins are illusory.

I guess using your example, I would say that the radio in the car is the blockchain.
The carkeys (privatekey) gets me in to change the channels, but I can't possess the radio signals.

keys=privkeys
car=coin
road=blockchain

no one owns the road.
everyone can use the road

the car is also on the road not no one owns the car. any family member with the keys or a thief with the right tools can use the car morally or immorally and take possession of it.

but if i am the only person with the keys then i am the only one that morally can use the car. which makes it in my possession (morally) while im the only key holder and the car is on a street i can get to.

again we are only talking about possession. not ownership

[AgentofCoin]

Are the car keys in your example the bitcoins or the privatekey? Or both?
I think you can "possess" the privatekey, but the "possession" of the bitcoins are illusory.

I guess using your example, I would say that the radio in the car is the blockchain.
The carkeys (privatekey) gets me in to change the channels, but I can't possess the radio signals.

keys=privkeys
car=coin
road=blockchain

no one owns the road.
everyone can use the road

the car is also on the road not no one owns the car. any family member with the keys or a thief with the right tools can use the car morally or immorally and take possession of it.

but if i am the only person with the keys then i am the only one that morally can use the car. which makes it in my possession (morally) while im the only key holder and the car is on a street i can get to.

again we are only talking about possession. not ownership

My issue with this example is that in my country, the roads are owned, possessed,
controlled, regulated by the state. They are a public use but privately held by the
state in a "public trust". They do not grant citizens a right to use them and have the
legal ability to restrict that public use. Depending on the circumstance, they are only
privileged use. Same with some other utilities in my country. Anyone can use the roads,
but only as long as they are used in accordance with the regulations that govern them.
So when you say blockchain is like the roads (and bitcoins are thus like cars = possession)
I have trouble seeing how it conforms within my country's laws.

Cars are also regulated and controlled by certain governmental agencies and you do not
have a right to drive a car, that is also a privilege. So I have problem with bitcoin being
a car, as well.

That is why I consider it like a rogue radio station, since like with private radio signals,
no country can easily stop or control them. No one can possess the radio signal but all can hear
it freely. Since bitcoin currently can not be regulated or controlled the way that roads are (in
my country) bitcoins fall into a limbo legal zone where either it is required to be regulated by
the state or it isn't regulated since it "doesn't exist" in a state of existence that the laws recognize.

To get around all that, I just say it can never be possessed because its existence is in question.
It may be that the privatekeys are the bitcoins and it is in a quantum state where they do exist
but don't exist, and can be possessed but are never possessed at the same time.

[franky1]

My issue with this example is that in my country, the roads are owned, possessed,
controlled, regulated by the state. They are a public use but privately held by the
state in a "public trust". They do not grant citizens a right to use them and have the
legal ability to restrict that public use. Depending on the circumstance, they are only
privileged use. Same with some other utilities in my country. Anyone can use the roads,
but only as long as they are used in accordance with the regulations that govern them.

the issue is you are not taking analogies at face value of a public road. you try to push beyond face value by introducing variables and outside extra's.
a rogue radio station is the same as an estate created on open land on an island by those living on it without needing mainland government oversight.
<6000 residents say here are the basic design plans for a road
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 16 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 4 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 2 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 1 lanes
and some residents(pools) build it by realising that only 1 lane roads are acceptable to all residents.

if the road doesnt meet the specifications of all the residents, the residents destroy the road and ask another road that fits the plans to be built.
there is no central government making decisions for the residents. the residents themselves set their own rules and what results as acceptable is a marginal solution that all residents accept. and they themselves destroy what is not suitable

bitcoin has no central government. so a road is just a public road. build by the consensus and compromise of residents.
bt if you dont like the car analogy..
screw it. lets call it the sea. and they keys allow people to use a boat.
screw it. lets call it the air. and they keys allow people to use a plane.
screw it. lets call it space. and they keys allow people to use a spaceship.
either way possession of a key is different to ownership of a key.. or of vehicle or of transportation platform.

possession seems to be the closest term no matter what analogy is used

So when you say blockchain is like the roads (and bitcoins are thus like cars keys= possession)
I have trouble seeing how it conforms within my country's laws. That is why I consider it like
a rouge radio station, since like with private radio signals, no country can easily stop or control
them. No one can possess the radio signal but all can hear it freely. Since bitcoin currently can
not be regulated or controlled the way that roads are (in my country) bitcoins fall into a limbo
legal zone where either it is required to be regulated by the state or it isn't regulated since it
"doesn't exist" in a state of existence that the laws recognize. So to get around all that, I just
say it can never be possessed because its existence is still in question.

as for pirate radio.
this analogy is flawed. because the signal is being broadcast by one radio DJ who is choosing what music shall be transmitted. thus he governs it without his listeners having a say.
secondly possession and ownership are different things.

[AgentofCoin]

My issue with this example is that in my country, the roads are owned, possessed,
controlled, regulated by the state. They are a public use but privately held by the
state in a "public trust". They do not grant citizens a right to use them and have the
legal ability to restrict that public use. Depending on the circumstance, they are only
privileged use. Same with some other utilities in my country. Anyone can use the roads,
but only as long as they are used in accordance with the regulations that govern them.

the issue is you are not taking analogies at face value of a public road. you try to push beyond face value by introducing variables and outside extra's.

Yes, but that is how laws and rights are formulated and determined, by systems that already
exist and are based upon other systems. So when you use those examples, I personally have
a hard time visualizing it since I know they are controlled and maintained physically and legally,
and Bitcoin/bitcoin is virtual and not regulated. So we are using regulated physical systems to explain
unregulated non-physical system to point to why they are a form of possession.

a rogue radio station is the same as an estate created on open land on an island by those living on it without needing mainland government oversight.

To me, that sounds like an example of what the blockchain is like.

<6000 residents say here are the basic design plans for a road
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 16 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 4 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 2 lanes
this is done by one group of residents accepting any width road below 1 lanes
and some residents(pools) build it by realising that only 1 lane roads are acceptable to all residents.

if the road doesnt meet the specifications of all the residents, the residents destroy the road and ask another road that fits the plans to be built.
there is no central government making decisions for the residents. the residents themselves set their own rules and what results as acceptable is a marginal solution that all residents accept. and they themselves destroy what is not suitable

bitcoin has no central government. so a road is just a public road. build by the consensus and compromise of residents.
bt if you dont like the car analogy..
screw it. lets call it the sea. and they keys allow people to use a boat.
screw it. lets call it the air. and they keys allow people to use a plane.
screw it. lets call it space. and they keys allow people to use a spaceship.
either way possession of a key is different to ownership of a key.. or of vehicle or of transportation platform.

possession seems to be the closest term no matter what analogy is used

I understand what you are saying, my point is that the car example and these other ones are
not self evident to prove possession. So from my perspective, I still question whether anyone can
actually possess bitcoins, since an example does not exist that properly fits to the particular
circumstances of Bitcoin.

If bitcoin is determined to be a possession, it must be regulated.
I think since it is not already regulated, that proves it can't be a possession.
If governments figure out a way to regulate Bitcoin/bitcoin itself, then I will say it is indeed a possession.

So when you say blockchain is like the roads (and bitcoins are thus like cars keys= possession)
I have trouble seeing how it conforms within my country's laws. That is why I consider it like
a rouge radio station, since like with private radio signals, no country can easily stop or control
them. No one can possess the radio signal but all can hear it freely. Since bitcoin currently can
not be regulated or controlled the way that roads are (in my country) bitcoins fall into a limbo
legal zone where either it is required to be regulated by the state or it isn't regulated since it
"doesn't exist" in a state of existence that the laws recognize. So to get around all that, I just
say it can never be possessed because its existence is still in question.

as for pirate radio.
this analogy is flawed. because the signal is being broadcast by one radio DJ who is choosing what music shall be transmitted. thus he governs it without his listeners having a say.
secondly possession and ownership are different things.

The pirate radio example may be flawed since I haven't given it much thought and just made it up.
My point is that I personally need something that can be comparable to Bitcoin/bitcoin.
Roads and Cars can be used with any example for anything.
Since Bitcoin is "special" it needs a more "special" example to determine if it is a true possession.

If the bitcoins are only representations of ledger entries within the blockchain system,
can those bitcoins be MY possession eventhough they are still within the blockchain system?
In theory, the blockchain still possesses them and the privatekey allows you to change
the position of the possession within itself. if you could take the bitcoins out of the blockchain
and carry them around or whatever, I would have an easier time saying they are a type of possession.

Of course, I could be over thinking this too much.

[franky1]

The pirate radio example may be flawed since I haven't given it much thought and just made it up.
My point is that I personally need something that can be comparable to Bitcoin/bitcoin.
Roads and Cars can be used with any example for anything.
Since Bitcoin is "special" it needs a more "special" example to determine if it is a true possession.

If the bitcoins are only representations of ledger entries within the blockchain system,
can those bitcoins be MY possession eventhough they are still within the blockchain system?
In theory, the blockchain still possesses them and the privatekey allows you to change
the position of the possession within itself. if you could take the bitcoins out of the blockchain
and carry them around or whatever, I would have an easier time saying they are a type of possession.

Of course, I could be over thinking this too much.

possession does not mean it has to be physically in your hand.
EG if it did then perves can get away with crimes by saying the gross images were not in their hand so they did not possess the images.
the perve has to however prove he had no access to gross images, or was not the only one with access. to prove he had no/reasonable doubt of possession.

possession is just who has access.

ownership is registered and provable deservingness to hinder others from having trying to claim free usage. but still even being an owner. does not stop others possessing it morally or immorally.
EG. a lawnmower in a garage. a receipt proves who owns it and deserves it back. but only the person with the key to the garage possesses it.
possession does not prove ownership. and ownership does not prove possession.

no one has the lawnmower/coin outright. as that requires debate. but only those with a key with access to move the lawnmower/coin has possession. even if that lawnmower is locked up in a storage locker 200 miles away and that storage locker can be burned down at any time.

[AgentofCoin]

The pirate radio example may be flawed since I haven't given it much thought and just made it up.
My point is that I personally need something that can be comparable to Bitcoin/bitcoin.
Roads and Cars can be used with any example for anything.
Since Bitcoin is "special" it needs a more "special" example to determine if it is a true possession.

If the bitcoins are only representations of ledger entries within the blockchain system,
can those bitcoins be MY possession eventhough they are still within the blockchain system?
In theory, the blockchain still possesses them and the privatekey allows you to change
the position of the possession within itself. if you could take the bitcoins out of the blockchain
and carry them around or whatever, I would have an easier time saying they are a type of possession.

Of course, I could be over thinking this too much.

possession does not mean it has to be physically in your hand.
EG if it did then perves can get away with crimes by saying the gross images were not in their hand so they did not possess the images.
the perve has to however prove he had no access to gross images, or was not the only one with access. to prove he had no/reasonable doubt of possession.

I am aware of that. My point was that if you could take it from the blockchain,
it would be easier for me to recognize it as a type of possession. Since it never
leaves the blockchain, the bitcoins are in actuality the blockchain itself, they are
the same entity, there is only one. So if that is true, would you argue that
you possess the blockchain as well (without maintaining the full ledger on a harddrive)?

possession is just who has access.

Yes, but that only applies to physical things. Does that apply to the virtual?
If possession is just access in this case, then we all possess the blockchain as well.

ownership is registered and provable deservingness to hinder others from having trying to claim free usage. but still even being an owner. does not stop others possessing it morally or immorally.
EG. a lawnmower in a garage. a receipt proves who owns it and deserves it back. but only the person with the key to the garage possesses it.
possession does not prove ownership. and ownership does not prove possession.

no one has the lawnmower/coin outright. as that requires debate. but only those with a key with access to move the lawnmower/coin has possession. even if that lawnmower is locked up in a storage locker 200 miles away and that storage locker can be burned down at any time.

Possession does not prove ownership, but ownership can prove possession.
That is how possession works legally. There can not be possession without an owner somewhere in the world.
Possession exists because there is a transference from the owner, whether authorized or not.

The blockchain issues the coins to the miners by transference, thus a form of possession.
(The blockchain can never grant ownership of itself, so only possession can apply.)
But the coins never leave the blockchain, thus no actual transference occurred.
All that seems to have occurred is the transfer of a control right, while possession remains
in the hands of the blockchain. When you transfer money within a bank, possession still
is with the bank, but the balance control is attributed to you. If you take that money out
from the bank, you now truly possess that money. (but the money is still owned by the gov.)


Otherwise if you are correct, we not only possess the bitcoins within an address,
but also the whole blockchain itself, since they are one entity. For example, your money
can go to different banks and banking systems, but bitcoins must stay within the bitcoin blockchain.
This is a fact and is due to bitcoin and its blockchain being the same single entity.

[delliaerd]

For me  you bitcoin would be  you  own private property  for sure because  no one could able  to  touch  i but you  but  in terms  of legalization   it would be  an other  thing though   because  if someone  gets  you bitcoin  possesion you cant really file a case  againts  with it  because   bitcoin  is  not legal on some  countries.

I think Legal or illegal is does not matter. You still can use your bitcoin anytime although isp was blocked bitcoin. I agree that bitcoin is private property of the owner. The owner have a freedom of what for they use bitcoin. Although goverment,isp or satoshi banned bitcoin I think it would not stop the bitcoin owner to use their bitcoin.  Yes bitcoin is have so many advantage that realy amazing.

[JITENDERPAR3]

since the bitcoin in our wallet is use by us and we can spent it in any ways but still in my opinion it is not our private property because still bitcoin are not in the hand of bitcoiner he can handle it only through internet data exchange .
but here it would be complicated to refer bitcoin as a private property .

[hajimasan]

The Virtual is Real: An Argument for Characterizing Bitcoins as Private Property
Via http://www.thelegrandgroup.com/blogs/post/The-Virtual-Is-Real/

"The usage of a bitcoin is necessarily a matter of exclusion because bitcoins are inherently highly rivalrous. By inherently highly rivalrous I mean that if one person uses a bitcoin, it is impossible for someone else to use that bitcoin at the same time. In contrast, other information based resources, like ideas, are capable of being used by a multitude of persons at the same time. Basically, a bitcoin is more like a spoon than a song. If I am eating with a spoon it is impossible for you to eat with that spoon at the same time. In contrast, we may both sing the song."

Do you think bitcoin should be considered private property? Also, what is going to happen to your bitcoin if you pass away? Cryptocurrency is offering exciting, new options within many different industries. The discussion within the bitcoin community will need to address these points at some time, and I am interested in hearing your opinion.

ofcourse the bitcoin should be considered as the private property because the owner can easily handle his bitcoin with oqn freedom , he can send and Receive through own descion , so it is not bad to say that  bitcoin is a private property .