An Argument for Bitcoin as Private Property

[franky1]

It's private property then. Like Bitcoins are.

the network is not private property, its public property. anyone can use:

If it was public property, then where's my right-of way to march into the mining farms and borrow a little hashing power? You could use your public access too Franky, change everything around into your socialist Bitcoin Unlimited paradise! Oh no, wait you can't. Nothing to do with the network nodes being private property though, right?

a mining farm is not the public network.
an ASIC does not have a hard drive so has no blockchain. and ASIC does not relay transactions. an ASIC only produces hashes.
mining farms only produces hashes.. then the farm connects to a pool. and then separately, the pool connects to the network.

thus you are pretending your public right of way of walking down a street allows you to walk into anyones house uninvited purely because there are houses on the sides of the streets connected via a garden gate

stop trying to make it an all or nothing debate to push your dictatorial regime
network=public no authority
coins=private key holders authority

your analogy
street=public no authority
house=private key holders authority

[1714942762]

1714942762

[1714942762]

1714942762

[1714942762]

1714942762

[clickerz]

I think bitcoin is more of a personal property to me. It carries the same principle as movable or you can transfer it in another location, virtually I think it will follow the same law as money since bitcoin is same as currency also. But with absence of law,when your gone on this world,your bitcoin will be gone  also unless you give your private keys to someone before your demised.

[BitcoinExpart]

Yes!The balance of bitcoin in our wallet is of course private property.I thing it's so easy to realize If Bitcoin is just money so why not consider our money is our property,isn't it?

[Carlton Banks]

So, the Bitcoin network is public property, according to Franky.


That means the public has a right to use it, no?


Except they don't. All the public have is the ability to convince the miners to let them use the network, by including a transactions fee that is high enough to tempt them. No rights. no entitlements.

And that does not conform to the definition of public property. Sounds like a business, run as a service, paid for by willing users. Private property.

[RealEstCoin]

Another important point is that at the inception of Bitcoin it had no inherent value and real world goods/services could not be exchanged with it.

[Junko]

Seems like some are arguing semantics. All's I know is that the bitcoins I have in my possession are mines and no one else's until I sell them, trade them, use them to buy goods and services, give them to others or gamble them away.

[eternalgloom]

Another important point is that at the inception of Bitcoin it had no inherent value and real world goods/services could not be exchanged with it.

How is that an important point? Certainly not against the notion of Bitcoin being private property.
It's not because something has no value that it couldn't be considered private property.

[piloder]

As bitcoin is launched as open source and available to public for any types of modification so i think bitcoin should be considered as public property as well as bitcoin market is driven by supply/demand of bitcoin by large trder's community. SO i will say bitcoin is public property.

[AgentofCoin]

Many comments in this thread are very ignorant of law.
Bitcoin/bitcoin is not a public nor a private property.

The reasons why governments find it so hard to classify what bitcoin is  
(ex: currency, commodity, asset, etc)  is because of its many contradictory properties.
For example, bitcoin can be passed p2p very easily like a currency, but it also in theory,
gains value over time due to its limited coin cap, like an appreciable asset. So from this
viewpoint bitcoin could be a property, yet, there is no such actual object that exists
outside the blockchain. You can not take your bitcoins out from the system, since those
individual bitcoins are the system. So, from a legal point of view, there  is no actual
property, only a temporary right to control virtual assets within a virtual platform.

Basically, when you get a private key that has bitcoin within it, you have a right to
temporary control. You have no right to that property, since there is no legal property.
Claiming that bitcoin is some form of property is comparable to when a person buys virtual
items within a game (ex: TF2, CS:GO, In-Game Purchases). That purchaser has no rights
to that item by law and is usually stated as so within the ToS of the game. In fact, that item
can not exist outside that game and the game developers have no obligation under any laws
to maintain the game indefinitely so that your virtual item which you paid fiat for, can
continue to exist.

The reason why the laws and interpretations are all over the place with different governments
and different legal jurisdictions is because no one actually knows what Bitcoin/bitcoin falls
into. It may even be possible that one day Bitcoin will fall into a new legal property type that
has not existed prior. There are many complicated legal aspects to Bitcoin that are currently
unresolved and in dispute.

Interestingly, if you think Bitcoin should be found to be a property and bitcoin is a public or
private property, then the bitcoin devs will be obligated by law to maintain and regulate the
Bitcoin system indefinitely. So, if you want bitcoin to remain an open-source free participatory
non-legally controlled and regulated financial platform, then you shouldn't be arguing it is an
actual property, since you do not know what you are actually asking for.

So, if a hacker steals your coins, they didn't steal your property, they gained control of your
temporary right and rightfully transferred them in accordance with the Bitcoin protocol.
The crime that was committed would be some type of computer hacking crime and not theft.

If you don't like that this is the Bitcoin system, than go back to regulated insured systems.
Satoshi created the system this way, so that it couldn't be easily controllable under current laws.

EDIT: This is my personal opinion and not in any way a legal opinion that should be relied
upon in any legal jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction is different in law and interpretation, and individuals
should always retain an attorney within their own jurisdiction, for a proper legal opinion as to their rights.

[Milkduds]

The concept of money is something a lot of us take for granted due to not having it become worthless over night or go through a depression. Bitcoin is the same because we agree to a value for it,once we do not it is worthless like clam shells of old.
Private would mean you do not mean to transact in it or am I missing something? Once you use it,it is no longer private and no longer something you hold. Seems faulty in thinking that you hold it privately with a public ledger attached to it,but the discussion most likely goes beyond my grasp of property.

[franky1]

Many comments in this thread is very ignorant of law.
Bitcoin/bitcoin is not a public nor a private property.

The reasons why governments find it so hard to classify what bitcoin is  
(ex: currency, commodity, asset, etc)  is because of its many contradictory properties.
For example, bitcoin can be passed p2p very easily like a currency, but it also in theory,
gains value over time due to its limited coin cap, like an appreciable asset. So from this
viewpoint bitcoin could be a property, yet, there is no such actual object that exists
outside the blockchain. You can not take your bitcoins out from the system, since
those individual bitcoins are the system. So, from a legal point of view, there
is no actual property, only a temporary right to control virtual assets within
a virtual platform.

Basically, when you get a private key that has bitcoin within it, you have a right to
temporary control. You have no right to that property, since there is no legal property.
Claiming that bitcoin is some form of property is comparable to when a person buys virtual
items within a game (ex: TF2, CS:GO, In-Game Purchases). That purchaser has no rights
to that item by law and is usually stated as so within the ToS of the game. In fact, that item
can not exist outside that game and the game developers have no obligation under any laws
to maintain the game indefinitely so that your virtual item which you paid fiat for, can
continue to exist.

The reason why the laws and interpretations are all over the place with different governments
and different legal jurisdictions is because no one actually knows what Bitcoin/bitcoin falls
into. It may even be possible that one day Bitcoin will fall into a new legal property type that
has not existed prior. There are many complicated legal aspects to Bitcoin that is currently
unresolved.

Interestingly, if you think Bitcoin should be found to be a property and bitcoin is a public or
private property, then the bitcoin devs will be obligated by law to maintain and regulate the
Bitcoin system indefinitely. So, if you want bitcoin to remain an open-source free participatory
non-legally controlled and regulated financial platform, then you shouldn't be arguing it is an
actual property, since you do not know what you are actually asking for.

thinking long and hard, i have to agree.. so lets thrash it out to get a slightly better term

coins(btc):
"authorised possession" is a closer approximation..(still not perfect)
if you possess the key you have authority to use it.
an example of this is UK car registrations. it says "authorised keeper" on the log book. not owner. not user.
court orders can be filed to change possession of the car over to them

but then the expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law" which requires further proof to decide who deserves it most based on how it was obtained.

if you and only you possess the key to use X, legally you are authorised to use it. however morally, well that is a separate debate that needs to prove how you obtained it. to proclaim who 'owns' it.

this is why exchanges can run off with funds. legally they can prove someone handed them funds willingly to a private key only the exchange possesses, without the use of hacking. thus making the exchange the authorised user.
morally 'why' the exchange has the coins would side with the customer IF he shows he deposited funds under some good faith/terms&conditions that the exchange hands it back when the customer requests a withdrawal.
but IF there is no proof of goodfaith/terms.. then exchange wins the moral argument.

much like lending a lawn mower to a neighbour. if you cannot prove how you obtained it and cannot prove you contracted them to give it back. its not yours any more
or letting someone use the car. if you cannot prove you let them use it and cannot prove you were not the one using it, you pay the parking ticket

network:
there is no owner and no one possesses the entire network, there is just a common agreement of users to do things within some rules each have agreed to and compromised to, to communicate and use without issue. the rules are made by the common agreement of every node. not some central party.
like a financial trust. no one owns it. many can benefit from it based on the rules of the trust.

if you are able to accept data within the common range of the rules then you are authorised to use the network

commodity vs asset: the coins are not a raw material used for making other produce. so not a commodity. coins are an asset(possession).

possession alone does not equal ownership. but if you can prove how you obtained it moral. then it is deemed yours.
EG copyright/patent laws. just because you created a digital image does not mean its yours instantly. you have to register it to have proof that you are the moral possessor of it, to then claim it is yours

[Betwrong]

Well, what about your Facebook or your Twitter account? Are they also some kind of a private property? Becuase if they weren't hacked nobody else can use them either. Yes everybody can see what you post there but same goes for the Bitcoin network which is a public property like was said above.

I think only lawers can say whether it is a private property or not. And then that definition would stay until other lawers would dispose of it.

[AgentofCoin]

...

coins(btc):
"authorised possession" is a closer approximation..(still not perfect)
if you possess the key you have authority to use it.
an example of this is UK car registrations. it says "authorised keeper" on the log book. not owner. not user.
court orders can be filed to change possession of the car over to them

but then the expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law" which requires further proof to decide who deserves it most based on how it was obtained.

if you and only you possess the key to use X, ...
...

I don't know if it can still be a form of possession.
The problem here is, how do you prove that you are the only person with that private key?
Normally, the fact that you can prove in some way that it is your property, that is proof enough
(ex: witnesses, certifications, receipts, photos, etc). But with a private key, you can not guarantee
that someone else hasn't generated it or that you haven't willingly provided it to someone else.
You could prove that you were the original "owner" by outside proofs (such as listed above), but
you can never prove after that point. In theory, you could steal your own coins and claim theft for the
insurance payout, and no one could prove otherwise (if done correctly).

If you were obligated, by law, to register each btc tx with your personal ID info and who you transferred
to, then we could create a legal chain of possession and/or property rights. Without that, no one can
have rights within the unregulated decentralized blockchain system, IMO.

network:
there is no owner and no one possesses the entire network, there is just a common agreement of users to
do things within some rules each have agreed to and compromised to, to communicate and use without issue.
the rules are made by the common agreement of every node. not some central party.
like a financial trust. no one owns it. many can benefit from it based on the rules of the trust.

if you are able to accept data within the common range of the rules then you are authorised to use the network

I agree. There are no rights guaranteed and is willful participation.

commodity vs asset: the coins are not a raw material used for making other produce. so not a commodity. coins are an asset(possession).
possession alone does not equal ownership. but if you can prove how you obtained it moral. then it is deemed yours.
EG copyright/patent laws. just because you created a digital image does not mean its yours instantly. you have to register it to have proof that you are the moral possessor of it, to then claim it is yours

I agree it is more like an asset.
But as to whether it could be a commodity: If you burn bitcoins in a burn address in order to
convert those bitcoins into another form, can't bitcoin be a commodity (produce) in theory?
BTC has properties that are currently unknown to us, that may have different purposes in
the distant future. The fact is that we know what Satoshi "intended" it to be, but we don't
know how it will end up 50 years from now because it is so novel and adaptable.

As to registration to prove possessor claim: I agree that it would be needed to prove possession,
but I would argue that it is anti-Bitcoin to do so and would ultimately destroy all the benefits and
reasoning for using the Bitcoin network. This includes, legal regulatability, decentralization,
pseudonymous aspect, fungibility, and etc. Bitcoin registration leads to Bitcoin destruction.

Bitcoin's Property rights argument is like the argument about blacklisting of coins.
If you can create "clean" and "dirty" coins, you are destroying bitcoin through non-fungibility and if
you make bitcoin as a legal property (public or private), you are destroying bitcoin through forced regulation.


Satoshi designed the system to outmaneuver the current world systems of governance and finance.
By attempting to place Bitcoin/bitcoin within a familiar box, we are trying to outmaneuver Satoshi.

[prabowo96]

Bitcoin is a "product" that provide security...
You can see bitcoin with a lot of points of views, you can see it like a scheme, a product, a coin, whatever...
And that's why we will have a long way behind, each country(or people) will say a different thing.

[beerlover]

Yes!The balance of bitcoin in our wallet is of course private property.I thing it's so easy to realize If Bitcoin is just money so why not consider our money is our property,isn't it?

Yes the balance is more than just a private property but a super private property as someone has already mentioned. With bitcoin, everything you have a very high degree of privacy as no individual or government can challenge to forfeit it from you. You are the owner in 100% control of it, why not we simply call it a private property ?

[franky1]

...

coins(btc):
"authorised possession" is a closer approximation..(still not perfect)
..

I don't know if it can still be a form of possession.
The problem here is, how do you prove that you are the only person with that private key?

to possess is not to own. many people own the house keys to my home. they are authorised to possess the keys and authorised to come in my house. but they do not own my house.
it requires further proof of which key possessor "owns" what can be opened with the key.
EG if i can prove they have the deed. the house is their.

EG if i can prove by conversation logs that i asked someone for some coin and then use the ledger to show i received the coin with some conversation logs of saying i dont need to repay the coin. then the coin morally sits with me.

this is why i said possession and not owner.. possession is not ownership on its own merit. but on merit of other data

commodity vs asset: the coins are not a raw material used for making other produce. so not a commodity. coins are an asset(possession).
possession alone does not equal ownership. but if you can prove how you obtained it moral. then it is deemed yours.
EG copyright/patent laws. just because you created a digital image does not mean its yours instantly. you have to register it to have proof that you are the moral possessor of it, to then claim it is yours

I agree it is more like an asset.
But as to whether it could be a commodity: If you burn bitcoins in a burn address in order to
convert those bitcoins into another form, can't bitcoin be a commodity (produce) in theory?
BTC has properties that are currently unknown to us, that may have different purposes in
the distant future. The fact is that we know what Satoshi "intended" it to be, but we don't
know how it will end up 50 years from now because it is so novel and adaptable.

hmm.. you got me thinking
technically a satoshi is the commodity
as that is the raw unit of measure behind it all.. and 100m satoshis used to 'form' a btc.
btc is just a 'basket'/group/common name of 100m satoshis.
just like bovine cattle is a 'basket'/group/common name of the underlying commodity, beef.
satoshi=commodity
btc=product/name of collection

As to registration to prove possessor claim: I agree that it would be needed to prove possession,
but I would argue that it is anti-Bitcoin to do so and would ultimately destroy all the benefits and
reasoning for using the Bitcoin network. This includes, legal regulatability, decentralization,
pseudonymous aspect, fungibility, and etc. Bitcoin registration leads to Bitcoin destruction.

Bitcoin's Property rights argument is like the argument about blacklisting of coins.
If you can create "clean" and "dirty" coins, you are destroying bitcoin through non-fungibility and if
you make bitcoin as a legal property (public or private), you are destroying bitcoin through forced regulation.


Satoshi designed the system to outmaneuver the current world systems of governance and finance.
By attempting to place Bitcoin/bitcoin within a familiar box, we are trying to outmaneuver Satoshi.

we shouldnt be thinking of centralised registration applications requests for moral proof by default.. but more so local evidence: of receipt. chat logs, etc
EG if ever in court we just show a receipt and chat log as evidence. no requirement of a centralized authority to store receipts/chatlogs.
though some could deem the posts in the exchange/escrow category as evidence and deem this forum as a central store of proof.. for those trading within the forum.

but thats just semantics of being lazy to not make your own terms and conditions/contracts locally and rely on just chat logs as moral proof

though the bitcoins own ledger is a store of receipt. we can also hold our own logs of "why" to cover the moral debate of who deserves it
especially with btc changing hands so fast that a central permanent store of current "why" x deserves z, wont work anyway in many cases.

EG coinbase just needs their own deposit history logs and their own terms of service to show why they deserve to keep the btc they possess. they dont need to register their T&C's with an authority.

though many can debate the authenticity of evidence if it has not been verified by third party.

but thats a debate that can be done in court if someone lost their btc to someone else immorally
evidence does not require centralization by default.

[AgentofCoin]

...

coins(btc):
"authorised possession" is a closer approximation..(still not perfect)
..

to possess is not to own. many people own the house keys to my home. they are authorised to possess the keys and authorised to come in my house. but they do not own my house.
it requires further proof of which key possessor "owns" what can be opened with the key.
EG if i can prove they have the deed. the house is their.

EG if i can prove by conversation logs that i asked someone for some coin and then use the ledger to show i received the coin with some conversation logs of saying i dont need to repay the coin. then the coin morally sits with me.

this is why i said possession and not owner.. possession is not ownership on its own merit. but on merit of other data

Usually, when it comes to property that is worth a sizable amount, governments require
registration with a centralized system to create a more efficient system of adjudication.
For example, houses have deeds, cars and boats have titles, insurance policies or other
agreement systems have contracts, a certain right to use things like driving a car or
owning a gun have licenses and/or permits. These forms of proof are usually stored in other
facilities to prove your claims of ownership. If I have a copy of your deed, title, or etc,
but with my name in it, the issue is which version was officially filed with its proper regulatory
agency. In a court of law, cases that involve these types of documents are usually easy
to determine ownership.

In court, if you have email communications between two parties that agree on terms on how btc tx
will occur and etc, and the other party violates those terms, and one takes the other to court to have
their btc returned or the equivalent in fiat, that agreement was memorialized within the email chain and
is the contract proof and the registered agency would be the court and the mechanism used would be
contract law interpretation.

With Bitcoin as it is intended to be used (no third parties), there are no such documented proof or
regulated agency to confirm registered ownership. The blockchain ledger is the only proof needed and
it is backed by private key control. The only required proof of ownership is the proof of possession or
control. If you apply legal rights on top of this new form of ownership (privatekey control), it will
need to have a legally recognized registration entity for efficient adjudication of bitcoin thefts and recoveries,
otherwise the court system will be overloaded with bitcoin thefts and other filings that are worthless, mostly
he said she saids, never go anywhere with final resolutions, or have contradictory legal determinations by
different judges with basically the same case arguments and evidence. The reason why there is no one voice
now as to what Bitcoin/bitcoin is on a legal aspect is because it violates property rights and laws by its nature.

I would argue, once again, that any such registration system would contradict Bitcoin's intention, but
would be needed for true enforcement along the lines of legal property as we know it.

commodity vs asset: the coins are not a raw material used for making other produce. so not a commodity. coins are an asset(possession).
possession alone does not equal ownership. but if you can prove how you obtained it moral. then it is deemed yours.
EG copyright/patent laws. just because you created a digital image does not mean its yours instantly. you have to register it to have proof that you are the moral possessor of it, to then claim it is yours

I agree it is more like an asset.
But as to whether it could be a commodity: If you burn bitcoins in a burn address in order to
convert those bitcoins into another form, can't bitcoin be a commodity (produce) in theory?
BTC has properties that are currently unknown to us, that may have different purposes in
the distant future. The fact is that we know what Satoshi "intended" it to be, but we don't
know how it will end up 50 years from now because it is so novel and adaptable.

hmm.. you got me thinking  
technically a satoshi is the commodity
as that is the raw unit of measure behind it all.. and 100m satoshis used to 'form' a btc.
btc is just a 'basket'/group/common name of 100m satoshis.
just like bovine cattle is a 'basket'/group/common name of the underlying commodity, beef.
satoshi=commodity
btc=product/name of collection

Maybe. That could be argued in a way.
I'm only referring to the destruction of some amount of btc, in order to create a new system/
object/form/whatever. Since it has not been created yet, its hard to envision all the different
possibilities, but for simple example imagine a random system that will create an original art
object/piece based upon the the past history and date of the burn destruction of 0.0015btc. In
this way, bitcoin is no longer an asset or a currency and becomes a commodity that is consumed
to create a new original work of art. (BTC is also a commodity for Coloredcoin created from BTC burn.)

...

we shouldnt be thinking of centralised registration applications requests for moral proof by default.. but more so local evidence: of receipt. chat logs, etc
EG if ever in court we just show a receipt and chat log as evidence. no requirement of a centralized authority to store receipts/chatlogs.
though some could deem the posts in the exchange/escrow category as evidence and deem this forum as a central store of proof.. for those trading within the forum.

but thats just semantics of being lazy to not make your own terms and conditions/contracts locally and rely on just chat logs as moral proof

though the bitcoins own ledger is a store of receipt. we can also hold our own logs of "why" to cover the moral debate of who deserves it
especially with btc changing hands so fast that a central permanent store of current "why" x deserves z, wont work anyway in many cases.

EG coinbase just needs their own deposit history logs and their own terms of service to show why they deserve to keep the btc they possess. they dont need to register their T&C's with an authority.

though many can debate the authenticity of evidence if it has not been verified by third party.

but thats a debate that can be done in court if someone lost their btc to someone else immorally
evidence does not require centralization by default.

My point is that for bitcoin to be classified as a legal private property, it will need something
more than proofs of purchase. We will need a system that provides "proof of non-transfer",
meaning that we can prove that you didn't transfer it away in an attempt to deceive. A registration
system would be used to not only provide "proof of non-transfer" since each tx will be marked
with user ID from and user ID to, but also provide a ledger of "legal ownership", which will reside
for legal adjudication and governmental regulations.

I do not agree with this type of system, as I have said previously, I'm just saying this is where I
think it will lead. Majority of bitcoin thefts do not have agreements or receipts to fall back upon to
use in court systems.

When bitcoin is used as Satoshi "intended" only key control matters, even in theft. If we choose to
do otherwise, or argue that bitcoin can be a personal property or asset, we are effectively undermining
what Satoshi "intended".

Here is the question that I'm basing my belief upon:
Can you legally own anything that is a virtual asset, within a participatory non-regulated distributed virtual
ledger network, that does not provide any rights or guarantees by authority, and the only proof of asset ownership
within this decentralized system is that you can move that property, or that you could have moved that property?

If you can answer the above with a "yes" with a rational that is legally sound, I would be impressed.

[franky1]

Here is the question that I'm basing my belief upon:
Can you legally own anything that is a virtual asset, within a participatory non-regulated distributed virtual
ledger network, that does not provide any rights or guarantees by authority, and the only proof of property ownership
within this decentralized system, is that you can move that property or that you did move that property?

If you can answer the above with a "yes" with a rational that is legally sound, I would be impressed.

with private property ownership, proof is needed.
if property is valuable, then people prefer the lazy/easy route of letting some third parties handle it. to avoid debate later.
Eg getting a lawyer draw up a document. a Will or something to show a transfer.
and items that are sales, inheritance and income tax directly related. then this third party is usually the government.

however possessing the key to something in 9 out of 10 times is enough. chances are you dont need to prove who you are when you use it.
most of the time there is never a problem so you never need to prove it. but if there is a problem(theft/hack/breach of contract) then proof is needed to decide the moral person who deserves it.

btc does not attach human identity to transactions. nor should it. bitcoin should not identify who "owns" the funds.
btc should be a "possession" rather than "ownership". to avoid the things you mentioned about the rabbit hole down to registration requirements..

allowing freedom of use by simple possession. where people, if they really care about their own coin can freely, locally and personally substantiate their claim by having their own records/evidence of how they got it. EG proving the lawnmower your neighbour uses should be yours
vs
calling it private property, which ends up with more headaches and more official logging of evidence.

[Yakamoto]

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.

It definitely is private property in some form, however I don't know how it would be most accurately defined. In my opinion this would be a good topic for debate, and may or may not be talked about enough already. I don't know what the consensus is.

[AgentofCoin]

Here is the question that I'm basing my belief upon:
Can you legally own anything that is a virtual asset, within a participatory non-regulated distributed virtual
ledger network, that does not provide any rights or guarantees by authority, and the only proof of property ownership
within this decentralized system, is that you can move that property or that you did move that property?

If you can answer the above with a "yes" with a rational that is legally sound, I would be impressed.

with private property ownership, proof is needed.
if property is valuable, then people prefer the lazy/easy route of letting some third parties handle it. to avoid debate later.
Eg getting a lawyer draw up a document. a Will or something to show a transfer.
and items that are sales, inheritance and income tax directly related. then this third party is usually the government.

however possessing the key to something in 9 out of 10 times is enough. chances are you dont need to prove who you are when you use it.
most of the time there is never a problem so you never need to prove it. but if there is a problem(theft/hack/breach of contract) then proof is needed to decide the moral person who deserves it.

btc does not attach human identity to transactions. nor should it. bitcoin should not identify who "owns" the funds.
btc should be a "possession" rather than "ownership". to avoid the things you mentioned about the rabbit hole down to registration requirements..

allowing freedom of use by simple possession. where people, if they really care about their own coin can freely, locally and personally substantiate their claim by having their own records/evidence of how they got it. EG proving the lawnmower your neighbour uses should be yours
vs
calling it private property, which ends up with more headaches and more official logging of evidence.

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.

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.

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.

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.