Quote from: reyals on December 12, 2012, 07:49:56 PM

Quote from: wdBTCtrader on December 12, 2012, 01:49:49 PM

Quote from: reyals on December 12, 2012, 03:15:23 AM

.....
But I guess my point was that he's just making an argument... He isn't talking about what they are he's talking about what it should be.

I would say I agree with him in general; though one can poke holes in most arguments. Like for example he didn't mention value. This doesn't matter in the real world because everything no matter how trivial is still 'something' but a computer can generate digital property like crazy. If I fork the blockchain and create 'reyalscoins' do they really deserve legal protection even if I'm the only one that uses them? (you're free to use them if you want so they'd still have 'interconnectivity')

But has anyone here actually stake out the position that they're not property? The real argument would seem to be more what laws that apply to 'normal property' as written really apply to bitcoins. But each one of those topics could occupy an entire thread itself. Inheritance tax for example could spawn several pages of back and forth.

I agree that he is making an argument, but in order define a previously undefined phrase that definition must be proven.

As far as value, VP is a general term to encompass Domain names, URLs, Bitcoins, etc. The definition of the general term should not hinder the value of anything specific that falls under it's scope.

If we were trying to define Bitcoins would you want to hinder the value by definition or allow the free market to determine that value.?

I was just saying he's just arguing what they should be... his opinion (though well researched) is no more authoritative than either yours or mine.

Also I think you have what I was saying backwards....
A finding that something is VP does not make something valuable. I was saying that something might need to be valuable before it can be considered virtual property.
Nothing to do with the free market...
So for example. My kids art work is property despite being worthless simply because it -IS- something. Paper, glue, crayon, whatever
However should virtual property be property if its similarly worthless? Bitcoins are easily VP because they meet all his requirements AND have value. But are my reaylscoins despite being identical to bitcoins in every way also property even if no one wants them?
Im not saying I agree with that but there are certainly considerations that one might need to weigh there. But such arguments are largely moot since I dont think anyone is actually taking that position and arguing that bitcoins arent property is there?

It has value if it CAN be destroyed. Because loss is irreversible depreciation.

(I actually would add "destructibility" to one of the key characteristics of property, which is not quite orthogonal to "persistence" as referred to in the manuscript).