If Bitcoin are property, why isn't it bartering?

[inoob]

If Bitcoin isn't a currency, why doesn't it fall under bartering when it's exchanged for goods?

[1715061014]

1715061014

[1715061014]

1715061014

[sweetgirl01]

If it is not recognized as a currency. This means that investors in the hands of bitcoin income tax will be levied on high, to some extent, dealt a blow to speculation.

[franky1]

If Bitcoin isn't a currency, why doesn't it fall under bartering when it's exchanged for goods?

because dictionary "currency" where bartering possessions such as gold, art, cars, sexual favours
is different compared to
government recognized "currency", such as bank notes, metal coins (FIAT)

bitcoin is not a
stock - companies 'products'
share - companies ownership
commodity - raw materials
government bonds

bitcoin is
an asset - a possession

if still unsure, speak to an accountant

[xeroc]

Not the whole world is US .. there are others you know!

[Foxpup]

Because it is bartering? Who said it isn't?

[nazban]

At least this possession... the government or any other organizations can't take unless they know the wallet password  . Now lets just hope the NSA are not the real creators of bitcoin and have implemented back doors like they have done other important shit.

[JoeyD]

I think someone should clear things up a bit to the powers that be.

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

- You can have access to a key-pair which is found and even though it's astronomically hard to find that exact key, it is not "owned" by you.
- That key gives access to a spot on the Bitcoin-train-network, but neither that spot, nor the network, nor the room (bitcoins) on that network is actually owned by any individual person.
- To be able to make use of the transportation-space on the Bitcoin-train-network you have to convince someone to send some of it to the part of the train you found the keys to. It just so happens that money is one of the easiest way to convince people, but that does not change the property aspect of anything.

Are train-tickets also considered property for the IRS? How about cellphone-network subscriptions? After you send an sms for example, can you still be considered "owner" of the digits or the network? Do you have to keep track of every good sms and keep a log of the monetary value you ascribe to that sms the moment you received it and file that in your tax-form?

[b¡tco¡n]

I think someone should clear things up a bit to the powers that be.

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

- You can have access to a key-pair which is found and even though it's astronomically hard to find that exact key, it is not "owned" by you.
- That key gives access to a spot on the Bitcoin-train-network, but neither that spot, nor the network, nor the room (bitcoins) on that network is actually owned by any individual person.
- To be able to make use of the transportation-space on the Bitcoin-train-network you have to convince someone to send some of it to the part of the train you found the keys to. It just so happens that money is one of the easiest way to convince people, but that does not change the property aspect of anything.

Are train-tickets also considered property for the IRS? How about cellphone-network subscriptions? After you send an sms for example, can you still be considered "owner" of the digits or the network? Do you have to keep track of every good sms and keep a log of the monetary value you ascribe to that sms the moment you received it and file that in your tax-form?

I think it is widely accepted that bitcoins have value and can be owned. The law and even common sense needs to play catch up with this btrave new digital world!

[ryanmnercer]

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

Oh, you mean just like your bank account...

[FeedbackLoop]

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

Oh, you mean just like your bank account...

Only that bank accounts are not bound by much.

[Beliathon]

I think someone should clear things up a bit to the powers that be.

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

- You can have access to a key-pair which is found and even though it's astronomically hard to find that exact key, it is not "owned" by you.
- That key gives access to a spot on the Bitcoin-train-network, but neither that spot, nor the network, nor the room (bitcoins) on that network is actually owned by any individual person.
- To be able to make use of the transportation-space on the Bitcoin-train-network you have to convince someone to send some of it to the part of the train you found the keys to. It just so happens that money is one of the easiest way to convince people, but that does not change the property aspect of anything.

Are train-tickets also considered property for the IRS? How about cellphone-network subscriptions? After you send an sms for example, can you still be considered "owner" of the digits or the network? Do you have to keep track of every good sms and keep a log of the monetary value you ascribe to that sms the moment you received it and file that in your tax-form?

Thank you for this brilliant and insightful explanation.

I would add to that: If you wanted, you could share one private key among two people, or twenty people, or two billion people.... Now who "owns" the coins associated with that address on the blockchain?

How will they tax THAT?

This is the problem with laws being crafted by people who don't even understand the technology they are legislating upon...

[inoob]

Because it is bartering? Who said it isn't?

my post was kind of redundant. but what i mean is, why not just trade wallets now? since people say they can make more than one wallet. why not just trade the wallet in tangible form, and give up the key. can't the key then be changed by the new owner?

[zolace]

If Bitcoin isn't a currency, why doesn't it fall under bartering when it's exchanged for goods?

There still is alot of confusion of it being a currency, product, or commodity.  Bitcoin can be anything what you believe it to be.

[mgio]

If Bitcoin isn't a currency, why doesn't it fall under bartering when it's exchanged for goods?

This is EXACTLY how it is being treated, at least in the US.

Who ever said it doesn't fall under bartering when using it to trade for goods???

[bountygiver]

At least this possession... the government or any other organizations can't take unless they know the wallet password  . Now lets just hope the NSA are not the real creators of bitcoin and have implemented back doors like they have done other important shit.

:/
The SHA algorithm is indeed designed by NSA

Although it is proven not to be reversible by everyone, we can't confirm that those who know the ways to reverse doesn't exists as they could be silenced by NSA.

[bountygiver]

Because it is bartering? Who said it isn't?

my post was kind of redundant. but what i mean is, why not just trade wallets now? since people say they can make more than one wallet. why not just trade the wallet in tangible form, and give up the key. can't the key then be changed by the new owner?

Each wallet can only have 1 private key
And if you give B your wallet, now 2 people has access to the private key
And B gives C and now more and more people have access to the private key, where ANYONE can spend the funds in the wallet.

[Imerman2]

I think someone should clear things up a bit to the powers that be.

How can bitcoins actually be "owned" by anyone? There is no property on the Bitcoin network, although it could be used for administrative purposes of property. Nobody actually owns Bitcoin or bitcoins, were talking about a digital ledger with entries that are bound by a set of mathematical rules here.

- You can have access to a key-pair which is found and even though it's astronomically hard to find that exact key, it is not "owned" by you.
- That key gives access to a spot on the Bitcoin-train-network, but neither that spot, nor the network, nor the room (bitcoins) on that network is actually owned by any individual person.
- To be able to make use of the transportation-space on the Bitcoin-train-network you have to convince someone to send some of it to the part of the train you found the keys to. It just so happens that money is one of the easiest way to convince people, but that does not change the property aspect of anything.

Are train-tickets also considered property for the IRS? How about cellphone-network subscriptions? After you send an sms for example, can you still be considered "owner" of the digits or the network? Do you have to keep track of every good sms and keep a log of the monetary value you ascribe to that sms the moment you received it and file that in your tax-form?

All that is necessary for something to be owned is for it to be scarce, Bitcoins are not unlimited therefore they can be owned.  If it is scarce then there can exist a conflict over who has the right choose how that scarce object is used, property rights over scarce objects eliminates this source of conflict.

The Bitcoin network as designed cannot be owned, but Bitcoins can.  Bitcoins and the Bitcoin network are not the same thing.

[JoeyD]

The Bitcoin network as designed cannot be owned, but Bitcoins can.  Bitcoins and the Bitcoin network are not the same thing.

Actually they are, you can't separate the two and that includes ownership. I can understand why that would be an unpopular point of view for a lot of people, but that does not make it any less true. Just to make things clear I'm not saying Bitcoin or bitcoins don't have value, nor that you can't put a monetary price on the ability to affect the use of bitcoins in the network, but that does not equal property.

I think you could argue that bitcoin addresses are so hard to find that they are similar to staking a claim, but when there is no registration or authority to register that claim, how can this be considered property? Best analogy I can think of at the moment is that bitcoin-addresses are similar to discovering a unique celestial object (like an asteroid), you can decide to share that discovery with others or keep it secret, but other than naming it (and in the case of bitcoin that means being able to influence it), you do not own it. As far as I can tell, you can't call dibs in Bitcoin.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if having the ability to do something, could be considered property and that taking that ability away without compensation is punisheable similar to theft.

[counter]

I love it when people say the whole world isn't the United States it reminds me of Amir Taki when I read that heh.  I'd say it's not being bartered on a large scale because there is not a real need for it or so people think.  Just like silver or alcohol band aids etc.  There will be a time for that but just not now it seems.