In another thread I posted that this idea could be used to legally define Bitcoin.
...
bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that
solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to
have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.
I disagree with your reasoning.
I don't think these record entries i.e. bitcoins have value because they're part of that record but because the "space" in that record is scarce and I think it's quite irrelevant what sort of record it is. Even in games such as WoW or EvE you have scarcity. If my account is hacked (pw is information not property) someone with access to it can then destroy my tangible incorporeal scarce spaceship (my property) or they can transfer it to another character. It doesn't matter that in EVE this digital property has a virtually non existent production cost, what is important is scarcity and the items my toon owns are definitely scarce even if only artificially imposed by the designers of the game.
Come to think of it, the artificial scarcity imposed by the game designers is no different than the artificial scarcity of Bitcoin unspent outputs. The only difference is the production cost of the two which affects the time and chance for this scarcity to remain.
I strongly think that when it comes to property scarcity is the most crucial property, without it no property ownership makes a lot of sense because if a thing isn't scarce it's irrelevant if someone claims it be theirs because anyone can just get some of that thing without the claimed owner even noticing anything.