Bitcoin provides network access. Bitcoins do not. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a Bitcoin. Your references to market value are invalid because the market is not legally recognized as such. "Value in use" and "value in exchange" are consequently irrelevant. If what you are saying is true legally, then copyright laws wouldn't need to exist as everything would be a form of copyright since anyone could claim that there is value (and thus ownership) associated with anything you generate or type on your computer.
Property is determined by its value, and this value must be proven according to existing law. What you seem to be getting at is that there is an electrical cost associated with the generation of a Bitcoin, and just as the clothmaker would say that there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of the cloth, there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of a Bitcoin. But there is also a manufacturing/time cost associated with anything I type on the internet, on any post, in any text document, etc., yet this information can legally be 'stolen' and exchanged freely without any legal consequence so long as there is no copyright protection. So, the definitions you gave are invalid with regard to certain lawful applications, thus rendering their use in this argument invalid.
Can you send info on the BTC network without Bitcoins? NO! Bitcoins are the access token for the network so you are wrong... again...
Everything else is your opinion and it's not supported by any law. Who are you to determine what is "legally recognized"?
The IRS recognizes "pre-paid access" So again you are wrong.
You say bitcoins have no intrinsic value. Niether to Federal Reserve Notes . The value is extrinsic which is enough to support a contract.
Even a promise which has no intrinsic value is a good and valuable consideration.
Let me ask you what does a notary public do? They authenticate documents.
What does the Bitcoin network do? It authenticates electronic data continuously.
A bitcoin allows access to the authentication system (Bitcoin peer to peer network). Like I said it is an access token.
I didn't say anything about electrical costs , stop flailing...
In Bitcoin didn't have any value every single transaction that ever happened involving them would be fraud. You know that's not true.
Bitcoins let you perform a function which you can not perform without them.
One more thing...
Property is determined by value? WTF are you talking about , that is one of the most nonsensical thing I ever heard.
Property is nomen generalissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest, including real and personal property, easements, franchises, and other incorporeal hereditaments. Lawrence v. Hennessy, 65 S. W. 717, 719, 165 Mo. 659; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 35; Scranton v. Wheeler, 21 Sup. Ct 48, 59, 179 U. S. 141, 45 L. Ed, 12G; Caro v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. (14 Jones & S.) 164, 168; Metropolitan City Ry. Co. v. Chicago W. D. Ry. Co., 87 111. 317; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Highways of Town of Mattoon, 43 N. E. 1100, 1101, 161 111. 247; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 69 Pac. 1050, 12 Okl. 82.
In its modern sense, confined to that which may be touched by the hand or seen by the eye. What is called "tangible property" has come to be, in most great enterprises, but the embodiment physically of an underlying life; a life that in its contribution to success is immeasurably more effective than mere physical embodiment Such, for example, are properties built upon franchises, on grants of government, on good will on trade-names, and the like. It is needless to say that to every Ingredient of property thus made up, the intangible as well as the tangible, that which is discernible to mind only as well as that susceptible to physical touch, equity extends appropriate protection. National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (U. S.) 119 Fed. 294, 299, 56 C. C. A. 19S, 60 L. R. A. 805.
You sir, do not have a clue what you are talking about. If we were in a strict common law system you would be right. However law was merged with equity after Erie v Tompkins. Property rights are not limited to the physical world. Sorry to burst your bubble. AT this point you are wasting your time ... and mine.