Thanks for all the thoughtful debate,
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 have come to think of it as information and a right tracking system monitored through mathematics and validated on a P2P system confirmed by all users. And the process we are going through now is an attempt to couple that system to represent economic contributions and withdrawals, so from our current perspective it helps to think of it as property but it is not in fact property, but more a participatory stewardship right.
That sounds similar to why I made the argument I made about why it wasn't theft to 'steal' bitcoins.
But I'd say the ball to be considered property is much lower.
So Bitcoins are information on the P2P network, when I get given Bitcoin's I never actually take position or ownership, I just get given a right to decide how to direct that information. The idea as BTC as property is merely a convenient concept for relating my understanding to the meme of ownership.
You don't think a right over information doesn't make them 'yours'?
Do you not refer to the files on your computer as your files desipite their existence only as information?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propertyb: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thingI'd find it silly to make an argument that they wouldn't at least fit the common english useage of the word property. And after that it would simply be a matter of trying to determine the degree to which existing property laws apply to bitcoins. Which is more about the wording of the law then the definition of property.
Disagree?