Why should Bitcoin be treated any differently to any other asset?
You assume that the State has the right to seize assets at will. I do not.
BFL has not (yet) been convicted of anything.
Edit: my first answer to this (above) was rushed and intemperate. I was irritated at the poster's bellicose style. He asked a really important question though, even if his intention was to ask it rhetorically.
My more considered opinion is something like the following.
BTC is a mathematical entity. It is not an asset class that has ever been regulated before.
It is not an asset class at all. Calling it an asset does not make it an asset, although it is certainly possible that a bullying entity can treat it as such in the short term.
A
BTC is a number, an abstraction. We are used to seeing it in various surface forms, perhaps an ASCII, hex or binary string, or an array of NAND gates or transistors, but the underlying entity is a number.
We are used to thinking of
BTC transactions as requiring computers, but the computers are just a (very) convenient facilitator to manipulate the numbers quickly.
The same is true for a wallet full of
BTC or the whole blockchain for that matter.
The entire
BTC ecosphere is nothing but numbers - "abstractions all the way down". The algorithms that manipulate those numbers are themselves implemented as numbers, by the way.
"Handing over a
BTC stash" requires telling someone a number - no more, no less.
The number is, of course, large and messy. However, it is not a deed to a ranch, or a key to a buried strongbox full of gold, or even a number combination that can be used to open a vault full of diamonds. It is a number that can, under some circumstances, be used to manipulate other numbers. No more, no less.
The State has put itself in the absurd position of demanding that people reveal a number, after which the State might decide to auction that number (now "theirs") to a highest bidder who will then become the new "owner" of the number.
In my opinion, this state of affairs has arisen because of tactics used by the
BTC Foundation to appease regulators, and by the mindset of regulators themselves.
Murck, in a recent interview, described with apparent pride how it is more effective to tell regulators that your new entity (
BTC) is really just like something they already know how to regulate - don't stress its novel features, instead stress its familiar features.
I certainly understand how this approach would help grease the wheels of the regulatory process.
Unfortunately, saying that something is different than what it really is leads to future problems.
It leads to regulations that are inappropriate for what the entity really is.
I believe that for those of us early adopters who imagined that
BTC might be a stateless, state-free, state-proof way of transacting with peers - these attempts to make
BTC fit a familiar Procrustean State-manipulated form are most unwelcome.
If
BTC morphs into Statecoin, as it may do, then I imagine something else will arise that more closely fits the original vision.
Time will tell.
