Australian Govt. form asks if I own any Bitcoin of Cryptocurrency

[R2D221]

This is just too technical. In the practical side, it can be said that you own bitcoins and you can spend them whenever you want.

Practicality does not give you the power to bend reality or language to your will. Reality is reality, and no one can own information, it is free by default, most especially now in the internet age. Bitcoin is information.

"Just as water always seeks to flow downhill, information always seeks to be free"

Language “bends” (or rather, evolves) constantly, and words can change meanings, and although I agree no one can own information, Bitcoin is more than just information. The fact that I can know that private key X has control over Y amount of bitcoins, doesn't mean that I can spend them. Information is not enough to use Bitcoin.

[jjc326]

This is just too technical. In the practical side, it can be said that you own bitcoins and you can spend them whenever you want.

Practicality does not give you the power to bend reality or language to your will. Reality is reality, and no one can own information, it is free by default, most especially now in the internet age. Bitcoin is information.

Just as water always seeks to flow downhill, information always seeks to be free. Once information has passed to a new location outside of the source's control there is no way of ensuring it is not propagated further, and therefore will naturally tend towards a state where that information is widely distributed.  On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other. 

It's just semantics, you KNOW what they are really asking you and the answer is apparently YES.  I'm not saying you should put yes on a form like that but if you can spend them or sell them for fiat, the answer is yes.

[Verse]

If they can trace your purchases then they could determine whether or not you have bought any Bitcoin, but as many others have pointed out ownership is a rather convoluted idea. If you're confronted then just say you lost them, and make sure you don't leave any evidence otherwise. I suspect this tact will work a lot better than getting all philosophical and debating the idea of 'ownership'.

I don't like the fact that this questionnaire is just asking whether or not you own Bitcoin, this is setting the stage for a witch hunt down the line.

[inBitweTrust]

Filling out the form I came across the question "Do you own any bitcoin or cryptocurrency"

Comments?

You need to listen to "Miranda".

      "You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. "

Once you claim you own any than it is up to their opinion on whether you are being honest or not when you later say you lost them.

You will not outsmart them at their own game, enter their jurisdiction and play by their rules and they will win.

If they do investigate you a jury or tax audit agent is more likely to believe that you "didn't own any at that time because you were broke and spent them" and now have some in this hot wallet(70-100 AUS$ worth) than you lost your bitcoins.

[awesome31312]

Maybe it's a survey, how many people with brain problems use Bitcoin?

[Dabs]

Have you, or any member of your family,

been convicted of a crime or offense for which a pardon has not been granted?

been convicted of, or are currently charged with, on trial for, or party to a crime or offence, or subject of any criminal proceedings in any other country?

been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, this country or any other country?

been involved in an act of genocide, a war crime or in the commission of a crime against humanity?

used, planned or advocated the use of armed struggle or violence to reach political, religious or social objectives?

been associated with a group that used, uses, advocated or advocates the use of armed struggle or violence to reach political, religious or social objectives?

been a member of an organization that is or was engaged in an activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity?

been detained, incarcerated or put in jail?

are you insane?

do you have weapons of mass destruction?

do you have any doge coins? Much wow?

[inBitweTrust]

Maybe it's a survey, how many people with brain problems use Bitcoin?

Likely they believe almost all of us have "brain problems" if we use Bitcoin. Simply owning bitcoin will probably send off many red flags just as claiming you are self employed or own your a small business. Whenever they get a hint that you have something they cannot control alarms start to happen and they begin to wonder.

[msc]

Nobody owns any bitcoins. The fact that they even ask the question shows a mis-understanding of the nature of decentralized cryptocurrency.

False.  "Own" refers to the value of the bitcoins, not the bitcoins themselves.  It's a convenient way to say that you claim that value, and that you'd care if someone stole it from you.  In other words, everyone knows what they're asking.

[Ektra]

This is just too technical. In the practical side, it can be said that you own bitcoins and you can spend them whenever you want.

Practicality does not give you the power to bend reality or language to your will. Reality is reality, and no one can own information, it is free by default, most especially now in the internet age. Bitcoin is information.

"Just as water always seeks to flow downhill, information always seeks to be free"

Language “bends” (or rather, evolves) constantly, and words can change meanings, and although I agree no one can own information, Bitcoin is more than just information. The fact that I can know that private key X has control over Y amount of bitcoins, doesn't mean that I can spend them. Information is not enough to use Bitcoin.

Spinning language technicalities the right way in order to serve your own self interest is a fine legal tradition and one that lawyers and governments are quite happy to take advantage of, honesty, common sense and the natural evolution of language be damned.
I say use this wording ambiguity to avoid disclosing your bitcoins as long as possible. The legal types can come up with a stricter definition of 'owning' bitcoins later on.

[Gleb Gamow]

It is a perfectly legitimate question if there is a financial means test for disability benefits.

Sure it's legitimate! If the question was beneath the question asking if you have any funds in PayPal, of which would be above the question asking if you have any funds in Dwolla. Then, followed by, do you own a piggy bank to store your loose change?

[awesome31312]

It is a perfectly legitimate question if there is a financial means test for disability benefits.

Sure it's legitimate! If the question was beneath the question asking if you have any funds in PayPal, of which would be above the question asking if you have any funds in Dwolla. Then, followed by, do you own a piggy bank to store your loose change?

That's an excellent analogy

[Gleb Gamow]

Nobody owns any bitcoins. The fact that they even ask the question shows a mis-understanding of the nature of decentralized cryptocurrency.

False.  "Own" refers to the value of the bitcoins, not the bitcoins themselves.  It's a convenient way to say that you claim that value, and that you'd care if someone stole it from you.  In other words, everyone knows what they're asking.

Not true! A certain brainiac on this forum was asked pointblank if he was sent home last Friday, in reference to the BFL raid. His reply was that he worked till 4 PM. Later, he recanted by stating that he wasn't asked where he works, when the general consensus is that he works at BFL, defending them to this very day.

Ergo, nobody owns bitcoins or Bitcoin, thus the answer is no, even if some balance sheet shows 100 BTC on account. Technically, you don't own your own home if you at least have one more payment to make to some banking institute due to a loan. Same true for any vehicle in its driveway.

[BADecker]

If the answer will determine your ability to get medical help, you might be need to fill out the form. "Beggars can't be choosers." Check out local laws about the requirements to answer certain private questions on the form.

What does it matter if you own bitcoins or others?

If you don't want to appear that you own any, but you have some, get rid of them before you sign the paper.

Is this question being used to accumulate statistics? Or is it being used to determine your ability to pay? Maybe it is for insurance purposes.

These questions are rhetorical, but they should give you some ideas about what other questions you might ask.

[awesome31312]

By such logic, nobody really owns their phones either, they were assembled in China, not by us

[hhanh00]

By such logic, nobody really owns their phones either, they were assembled in China, not by us

Or even own any cash money since it belongs to the government. It's illegal to burn money in many jurisdictions.

To the people who boldly advise the OP to stick it to the man, how many of you would keep that stance if they are the one facing the consequences?

I would seek professional legal advice.

[ArticMine]

By such logic, nobody really owns their phones either, they were assembled in China, not by us

Actually most people do not own their phones. The reason for this is that most cellular phones are locked down with DRM infected software. If one has an Android phone and roots it then one can take back ownership of what was rightfully one's own property in the first place.

Now when it comes to Bitcoin or course one can own Bitcoin, or to be technical "control the private keys that allow one to spend the Bitcoin on the blockchain". If the OP is interested in playing language semantics to obtain benefits for which he or she is not eligible due to net worth, the my suggestion is to get professional legal advice in the relevant jurisdiction. Frankly, I must give kudos to the Australian Government for asking this question in the first place. It show the proper recognition of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies as a legitimate asset and / or money.

[BADecker]

Now, let's not get nuts. After all, nobody owns anything. Not really.

Often people die unexpectedly. And it can happen to anybody. So where is true ownership. You don't even own your own life.

[jonald_fyookball]

Just write in the answer, "none of your fucken business".

I was at the doctors office a while ago filling out of
the form and one of the questions was: do you
wear your seatbelt?   

I felt like giving the same answer.

[BADecker]

Just write in the answer, "none of your fucken business".

I was at the doctors office a while ago filling out of
the form and one of the questions was: do you
wear your seatbelt?   

I felt like giving the same answer.

Just write "non-assumpsit." That means you don't take any responsibility for your answer.   

[Gleb Gamow]

By such logic, nobody really owns their phones either, they were assembled in China, not by us

Or even own any cash money since it belongs to the government. It's illegal to burn money in many jurisdictions.

To the people who boldly advise the OP to stick it to the man, how many of you would keep that stance if they are the one facing the consequences?

I would seek professional legal advice.

I concur! We should all be chastised for offering up an opinion counter that of yours and push to have the Aussie after brain surgery to seek the professional help of a lawyer that he'll have to pay for through the nose to see if he should check yes or no pertaining to if he has any bitcoins on a binding form that needs filling out due to his dire financial situation. Now, on top of all that, he's having difficulty breathing due to reading that last sentence. Question: Are we trying to kill each other here?

/s