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'
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.