Quote from: dooglus on November 03, 2013, 06:26:42 AM

Quote from: rpietila on November 02, 2013, 11:32:40 AM

Quote from: allover on November 02, 2013, 09:58:40 AM

You didn't follow up... I won back and invested in JD, made more profit. Now what I made from JD is more than 16K, you still think that's beautiful ?

If you have more than 30kBTC total, I can update it to the list.

What if coins are 'invested' in the Just-Dice bankroll? He no longer "holds" those coins - they're physically held in the JD cold wallet. Although he can request to withdraw them with a few hours' notice.

If you're not going to count MP's holdings because he has shares not actual Bitcoins, where do you draw the line?

The extremist stance is that whoever holds the keys, has the coins, and that bitcoins are not subject to a legal definition of ownership. This is not very practical or mature (imho). Everyone can imagine the problems if we actually thought this way.

At the very minimum bitcoins need to be subject to ownership, which makes custodial holdings count. Instead of Mark having all the balances of Mt.Gox customers, the customers own them, but they have a counterparty risk due to being commingled and given to Mt.Gox custody. Counterparty risk is bad, but having your bitcoins in your own possession is not risk-free either.

Mt.Gox example counts as bitcoins, since the custodial agreement does not give Mt.Gox the right to sell the coins. A different matter would be to give a bitcoin loan to some companies that get rid of the coins when building their business (like ASIC manufacturers). That would not count as bitcoins, since the bitcoins are sold and would become double-counted. An intermediate case is Just Dice, where the custodial agreement does not give the site any liberty to meddle with bitcoins, only the balance changes according to well-defined rules. Also the balance can be withdrawn at the lender's request, so it is more like a deposit, not a loan. I would classify this with Mt.Gox.

MPOE-PR raised the issue of having bitcoin-businesses. The stocks in bitcoin businesses are not bitcoins. This much is clear. But the businesses themselves are either incorporated or unincorporated Persons, and most likely hold bitcoins as their assets. In my opinion, the bitcoins owned by corporations should be prorated to their owners. MPEx famously does not have bitcoins in its balance sheet, so it counts as zero in MP total bitcoins. I, on the other hand, control a 60% stake in Silvervault, which owns about BTC2,000. In this method, BTC1,200 is credited to my total, regardless of the valuation of Silvervault or whether the stock is liquid or not.

If a company has lots of coins, but ownership is very dispersed so that no owner would make it to the Fortune 500, the company may remain "whole".

Anything to question/add?