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.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?
(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).
How do you destroy a bitcoin?
At the very worst sending it to a random address is more akin to put something in a safe and throwing a key then really destroying it.
The problem with making value a defining characteristic is that it is subjective. Something can have value to me, but to know one else. Take your example, if no one bought your reaylscoins they could still be very valuable to you. They represent time and effort you put into creating the fork and even have sentimental value.
We can also see this with collectibles. Have you ever seen the phrase, "I USED TO BE A MILLIONAIRE UNTIL MY MOM THREW OUT MY BASEBALL CARDS". Well, to the mother that threw them out, they had no value.
Again I'm not really making that argument. I was mealy pointing that he was making an argument and you can poke holes in any argument. I could have pointed out the lack of scarcity of digital property instead of using value.We can also see this with collectibles. Have you ever seen the phrase, "I USED TO BE A MILLIONAIRE UNTIL MY MOM THREW OUT MY BASEBALL CARDS". Well, to the mother that threw them out, they had no value.