Topic: Are Bitcoin's virtual property? - page 3. (Read 9849 times)

That's why I brought up intellectual property.  IP only 'exists' as property because everyone concerned agrees it is rather then any physical existance of the property.
I think simply calling bitcoins property is the easier leap then trying to extend those 'property rights' into other realms of law.  For example the bitcoin theft debate.

I think domain names can provide a good parallel in this example and have been found to be property in several cases.

You can call anything property, the trick is getting enough people to agree.

It actually doesn't,  early in the thread I had stated that by definition if something can be owned then it is property.  Then rivalrous was brought up because in a paper written on the subject it is used to define virtual property.  Then the two ideas of ownership and rivalrous became intertwined.  

I'm trying to catch up on the argument... but seem to be a bit lost.
Why is relevant how many people can 'own' a bitcoin in the determination if is or isn't property?

But anyway I'd personally stake out the postion that you can safely call bitcoins property...
I mean we have for example have intellectual property which exists only in theory because it is reconized by the some jurisdiction as being 'property'

All this arguing about what if and then is irrelevant.
What matters is that bitcoin CAN be rivalrous.

I believe this is technically incorrect. I'm not an expert on the bitcoin software, but I'm pretty sure anyone who has the keys can spend the coins.

That fact is completely relevant. This is an example of rivalrous.  1 of the 3 characteristics used to define virtual property.  It is a characteristic that is shared with real property as well as distinguishing virtual property from intellectual property.

But this wouldn't matter to you.  Since you have stated that you will make up and apply your own definitions to suite your own viewpoints.

  

You are not wrong, but then we get into contract theory and the question of, is the owner the people that make up the agreement or the entity that contract created?  Which diverges from OP's original question.

edit

and by your own admission since multiple people can own a car, we do agree the car is property. This does not suggest in anyway that Bitcoins are not Virtual property. None of your arguments have been able to disprove the fact that Bitcoins are virtual-property.

So it still stands that Bitcoins are in fact virtual property.  

I'm simply astounded at the level of complexity you two seem to enjoy to conjure up to fit your complicated inapplicable concepts.

Of course multiple people can own the same bitcoins i.e. the same unspent outputs.. It's like multiple people can own 1 car. The fact that multiple people can't drive it or sell it at the same time is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is an agreement between multiple parties that the limitations and restrictions imposed on the property don't apply to them or apply to them differently.

When I compute a new address and it's private key and receive some bitcoins to it, those bitcoins i.e. the unspent outputs attached to that public key are arguably mine because by keeping the private key a secret information I have limited and restricted the use of those unspent outputs. IF one wants to respect my ownership of these bitcoins, even if they should somehow learn the private key without my permission, they cannot spend the bitcoins. However if I give them my permission and voluntarily share with them the private key then this is no different than a shared ownership of a car. Depending on the agreement of ownership once one of the owners of the bitcoins spends them, the benefits of that transaction will be divvied up between the owners as agreed just like money from a car owned by multiple people and sold would be.

Of course without multisig you open yourself up to the risk of being defrauded and robbed, but that's just the same with sharing ownership of anything else.

Thanks I hadn't seen that, but this doesn't change the fact that a bitcoin cannot be owned by many people at 1 time.

As far as potential, this shouldn't add a layer of complexity.  We deal with this all the time.  to take the ealier example if I'm at a museum viewing the Mona Lisa there is potential for me to take ownership.  That potential may be extremely low because laws would be broken and for me not worth the risk, but it does exist.  Now say someone had a gun to my head.  Then that potential just increased to the point of absolute certainty I am going to take ownership.  

There have been new technical developments. Look up "pay to script hash" and related functionality.

if Possession is 9/10ths what is the other 1/10th?  


Okay, lets take apart the premise it is possible to give parts of a Bitcoin to many people so that many people have ownership.  Fundamentally this is not possible. Bitcoins can only be associated with 1 ECDSA key at any given time that means there can be only 1 owner at any given time.  Please see the following.


"Each coin is associated with its current owner's public ECDSA key. When you send some bitcoins to someone, you create a message (transaction), attaching the new owner's public key to this amount of coins, and sign it with your private key. When this transaction is broadcast to the bitcoin network, this lets everyone know that the new owner of these coins is the owner of the new key. Your signature on the message verifies for everyone that the message is authentic. The complete history of transactions is kept by everyone, so anyone can verify who is the current owner of any particular group of coins."

- source How Bitcoins Work



you can make up your own definitions to suite yourself if you like. Consider this,  having a general consensus of word (or even gesture) meanings is the only way we can communicate.  If you don't think so, then try to communicate with someone that speaks a different language than what you are familiar with.   You will be able to mimic their words, but it is not possible to communicate unless there is meaning associated with with those words.  

Go there and try to redeem your share then.

But doesn't being in a museum imply that everyone owns it? That's kind of the point of a museum, to share and curate a shared culture, which is ultimately owned by no one.

If everyone possesses the unspent outputs, then how many tenths of the law does that add up to? It seems like a lot of tenths. I am frightened by the idea of a rapidly inflating legal system this implies.

If multiple people possess the key information, then both simultaneously have the freedom to use the outputs, but it is not until that freedom is exercised that ownership can be computed and determined by the bitcoin protocol.

I suppose that one thing can have multiple owners, but in some cases one could be completely unaware of the other.

This is further complicated by the m-of-n scenario where multiple keys are used to manipulate one or more specific unspent outputs. How is ownership defined in that case?

The quantum description applies much better than any previous legal term, I think.

Ever heard of: Possession is nine-tenths of the law?

What you are saying is the same as saying that because everyone knows where the Mona Lisa is held everyone owns it. And yet that's not true because the picture although it's location being public is held under lock and key in a museum in Paris. It all falls back to how you define a property and how you define ownership.

Here are my definitions:
– property: a scarce tangible entity, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the access to and control of has been restricted and limited
– ownership: the freedom to restrict and limit the use of a scarce tangible, corporeal or incorporeal, entity

These definitions might not be what is generally accepted but they are what I thought of myself as the most sensible ones. And to answer your question, clearly just knowing about the unspent outputs means nothing if you don't have the information needed to turn them into inputs and spend them i.e. if you don't own them.

Then where does ownership come in? If the property is the unspent outputs, then everybody with a copy of the blockchain has them.

Either that or a far more simple explanation is that the private key is just information and the actual bitcoins, the property are the unspent outputs.

I thought the uncertainty principal had to with determining the position and momentum of a particle, but I'm not familiar enough to be certain.

The keys and accounts are not Bitcoins.  they are PKI.  You wouldn't say your PGP key is your email address.  They are two different things and have different functions.  If the key pair were Bitcoins then you would need to relinquish the key pair for each  transaction.   

you are correct that it is similar to what we know as money/property, but it being a hindrance is a matter of opinion. 

So it is more like quantum property, which exists in a state of ownership uncertainty until it is in fact spent. This is further complicated by the fact that a person can continuously create keys and accounts indefinitely and potentially gain access to unspent coins, without the original owners knowledge or detection, and not only that, but this could lead to irrevocable loss of the coins.

Just as with all money/property, it is more of a hindrance than a help to the human species.

Only 1 of those people can spend it at any given time.  Like a bank account many people can have access.  If they all tried to withdraw the balance of that account only the first successful attempt would be valid. So the actual owner of the money was the one who was able to use withdraw it.

Before the bitcoin is used any one of the holders has the potential to be the owner, but it the one that determines it's usage that is in fact the owner.