Quote from: Jutarul on December 14, 2012, 09:02:21 PM

Quote from: reyals on December 14, 2012, 08:42:16 PM

Quote from: Jutarul on December 14, 2012, 07:46:22 PM

full-fill the key characteristics we associate with property

You just proved yourself wrong. If they fullfill they key requirments to be property then they are in fact property.

Bullshit. For something to be property, it requires a claim of ownership. For something to be ABLE to be property is has to possess characteristics which enable the establishment of ownership. The first requires the second to be true - not the other way around. These are two disjunct propositions.

Otherwise I must conclude that you - as a person - are property. Now - you may say to this is correct and you own yourself. However, the term property only makes sense in a relational manner. Thus a property belonging to itself doesn't make any sense.
Also the association of people with property is kind of outlawed in modern society which abandoned slavery. Apparently some societies eventually decided that there are certain things which SHOULD NOT be claimable as property.

So what you're saying is.... that for something to be owned it must be ownable. What kind of statment is that?
For something to be valuable it must have value.
For something to be breakable it must be able to be broken.
What is this fun with grammer day?
http://wordinfo.info/unit/2365/ip:1

Then you bring up owning people as property, but then immediate discount your own argument by stating that people can't be owned.
Bitcoins can be owned and are ownable... so what point are you trying to make? Huh

?

Quote from: Jutarul on December 14, 2012, 09:08:01 PM

I think bitcoins possess key characteristics to establish ownership, and thus can serve as property in the common sense. And because it can, it will be treated as property.

So wait you do think they are property? Then why do you keep arguing pointless nuances about unrelated topics?