Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

BUT, various people can each own the same Bitcoin at the same time (just share your private key) and a number of people can own Bitcoin but only jointly (multi-sig). These things are not really possible with something physical such as gold.

Yes they are.

Firstly some terminology nitpicking: you don't *own* bitcoins, you *have access* to them (ability to spend unspent outputs).

Now to the issue: Using fucked-up legal frameworks and banking system, it's easily possible multiple people to have valid claim on the same gold and I'm pretty sure it's a widespread occurence.

Just as with a bitcoin-key being accessible to multiple persons: the first one to act can be the sole controller if he wants. Why isn't this happening with gold. Well, it is to an extent: germany asked for her gold back, for example. Many private investors (and/or institutional investors) are probably not aware or don't want to be aware of these "problems".

[1714040309]

1714040309

[1714040309]

1714040309

[1714040309]

1714040309

[1714040309]

1714040309

[molecular]

So far in 2013 alone, the US Dollar has lost 93% of its value compared to Bitcoin.

Most all assets on earth have collapsed when compared to bitcoin thus far in 2013.

It's funny how the "big crash" is really already in full force and noone in the mainstream even recognizes the fact because everything they look at crashes in unison ;-)

[molecular]

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

[molecular]

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

I don't see what you're getting at. With Bitcoin, legal or moral ownership doesn't matter for control - it's the ultimate neutral money, transcending the laws and power and opinions of individuals or groups.

In the FBI's case, someone in the FBI knows the private key or the password for accessing it, and that person has complete control over those coins. Unless multiple people have access, in which case each of them do.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

[molecular]

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

I don't see what you're getting at. With Bitcoin, legal or moral ownership doesn't matter for control - it's the ultimate neutral money, transcending the laws and power and opinions of individuals or groups.

In the FBI's case, someone in the FBI knows the private key or the password for accessing it, and that person has complete control over those coins. Unless multiple people have access, in which case each of them do.

You are correct. I was getting at the fact the "ownership" is probably a purely legal term. It might even be made illegal to own bitcoins (theoretically), yet you can still have control over them.

I shouldn't say "I own bitcoins", rather "I control" or "I possess" bitcoins.

[molecular]

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

Ok, I can live with that.

[wachtwoord]

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

[molecular]

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

[rpietila]

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

Hah, I just realized that my bitcoin security arrangements are so elaborate that if I am not in top mental condition, even I myself am unable to access my bitcoins. So if somebody wants them when I am well, he may succeed by asking nicely. But by causing physical or mental harm, he also makes the bounty inaccessible to everyone. Interesting.

[NewLiberty]

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

Land and gold are somewhat harder to take by means of a computer insecurity.

[wachtwoord]

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

In SF books people often have automatic self-euthanasia options build in that can be triggered mentally. If this ever becomes available I will have it installed. "Let me go now, or I'll euthanize myself and you'll never have anything!"

[vokain]

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

In SF books people often have automatic self-euthanasia options build in that can be triggered mentally. If this ever becomes available I will have it installed. "Let me go now, or I'll euthanize myself and you'll never have anything!"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
Be weary of remote (de)activation!

[rocks]

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

Ok, I can live with that.

Yes, getting these straight is important.

I think a main source of confusion is under a proper system of english common law where we live under the rule of established law and not under the rule of men, ownership = control. But when this legal framework breaks down (such as FDR's 1933 order) then ownership no longer equals control and the concepts of possession become important towards maintaining control.

So with Gold ownership equals control until the rule of law breaks down. With bitcoin the concept of possession is stronger than with gold so when the rule of law breaks down you still maintain stronger control. But as others have pointed out the state and still torture you till they get your coins, so the concepts of possession and control are stronger than with gold but not absolute. It is easier for the government to take your gold and/or inflate your money away than it is from them to torture you, but the state can do both...

[cypherdoc]

https://medium.com/p/9112bbfd40dc

[justusranvier]

Bitcoin doesn't care about our human concepts of possession and ownership and control.

Bitcoin is a self-contained system of rules. Those rules say that we have a blockchain containing a list of precise, cryptographic conditions which are necessary and sufficient to transform the blockchain in particular ways.

If we want Bitcoin to behave in in a manner that matches our preconceived notions of property and ownership, the onus is on us to use Bitcoin's rules in a way that achieves what we want.

Bitcoin is in no way limited to only behaving in ways that match our expectations. Bitcoin can do anything which is allowed by its rules, including operations that have no equivalent in our existing property and ownership paradigms.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

[sematics]I disagree, because with Bitcoin, two (or more) people can control the same bitcoins, in which case it becomes a race to send them first.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides your ability to prevent everyone else's control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

In other words, to own or possess bitcoin(s), you must be the sole controller of the private key.[/semantics]

I think this is an important distinction. o_O

Yes, multiple parties controlling the same coins are an exception.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Yes, multiple parties controlling the same coins are an exception.

not at all: it's like gold stored in a safe of which 2 or more ppl can have the key.

[oakpacific]

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

Gavin seemed to have implied control=ownership for Bitcoin here: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3840286/raw/b6834fc5ac1367cde3417781a329475f7b99430b/brainwallets.md

If there are unspent bitcoins associated with that passphrase, your software should also immediately send those bitcoins to your wallet. That is your way of letting the other person know they chose a bad passphrase, and your reward for letting them know they need to move the coins in their main brainwallet.