One key difference is that you can claim bank accounts, investment portfolios, 401k's with any number of personal identity information. Certainly the argument can be made that the wallet IS your personal identification and therefor the difference is that you are in sole possession and have sole responsibility for it whereas typical personal identification is the records of your government though witness of your peers will sometimes suffice if there is a failure of government records. I suppose I would concede that those are fairly complimentary though there are some differences.
Really I am being belligerent and actually agree with you. I just like to try to think sideways.
Topic: Possession (Read 569 times)
That doesn't seem to hold water. How is your bank account or investment portfolio or 401K any different? You have the private keys to use the coins. That's ownership.
I cannot post anywhere except newbies right now but I wanted to hear other opinions about this matter.
In many cases the law refers to possession. I think a good argument could be made that you don't actually possess bitcoin. I don't think you would win that argument so as to convince other people (which is the most important thing when talking about law) but it is an idea none the less.
Using bitcoin really requires 2 things. You need the blockchain. Everyone has the blockchain and with the exception of latest transactions that have not reached you yet, everyone has the same blockchain. You also need a wallet which could be construed as merely a unique tool for interpreting the blockchain. The bitcoin you are assumed to possess are actually in the blockchain and really are in the possession of everyone who has an active bitcoin client. If your wallet is destroyed, the bitcoin you had access to theoretically still exist in the blockchain. For practical purposes they are lost but nothing changed about the blockchain which technically keeps track of all the bitcoin. Does the ability to manipulate something mean you have possession of it. Does it make it possession because you are theoretically the only person that can manipulate something? Does having the blockchain mean I am in possession of all bitcoin?
Again, I don't think I would be able to convince a court that I never had possession of bitcoin and there may actually be law written to cover things like this. But the philosophical part of me still wants to argue this.
In many cases the law refers to possession. I think a good argument could be made that you don't actually possess bitcoin. I don't think you would win that argument so as to convince other people (which is the most important thing when talking about law) but it is an idea none the less.
Using bitcoin really requires 2 things. You need the blockchain. Everyone has the blockchain and with the exception of latest transactions that have not reached you yet, everyone has the same blockchain. You also need a wallet which could be construed as merely a unique tool for interpreting the blockchain. The bitcoin you are assumed to possess are actually in the blockchain and really are in the possession of everyone who has an active bitcoin client. If your wallet is destroyed, the bitcoin you had access to theoretically still exist in the blockchain. For practical purposes they are lost but nothing changed about the blockchain which technically keeps track of all the bitcoin. Does the ability to manipulate something mean you have possession of it. Does it make it possession because you are theoretically the only person that can manipulate something? Does having the blockchain mean I am in possession of all bitcoin?
Again, I don't think I would be able to convince a court that I never had possession of bitcoin and there may actually be law written to cover things like this. But the philosophical part of me still wants to argue this.
Jump to: