Quote from: indio007 on September 04, 2011, 04:07:58 AM

Quote from: the joint on September 04, 2011, 02:21:38 AM

Bitcoin provides network access. Bitcoins do not. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a Bitcoin. Your references to market value are invalid because the market is not legally recognized as such. "Value in use" and "value in exchange" are consequently irrelevant. If what you are saying is true legally, then copyright laws wouldn't need to exist as everything would be a form of copyright since anyone could claim that there is value (and thus ownership) associated with anything you generate or type on your computer.

Property is determined by its value, and this value must be proven according to existing law. What you seem to be getting at is that there is an electrical cost associated with the generation of a Bitcoin, and just as the clothmaker would say that there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of the cloth, there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of a Bitcoin. But there is also a manufacturing/time cost associated with anything I type on the internet, on any post, in any text document, etc., yet this information can legally be 'stolen' and exchanged freely without any legal consequence so long as there is no copyright protection. So, the definitions you gave are invalid with regard to certain lawful applications, thus rendering their use in this argument invalid.

Can you send info on the BTC network without Bitcoins? NO! Bitcoins are the access token for the network so you are wrong... again...

Everything else is your opinion and it's not supported by any law. Who are you to determine what is "legally recognized"?

The IRS recognizes "pre-paid access" So again you are wrong.
You say bitcoins have no intrinsic value. Niether to Federal Reserve Notes . The value is extrinsic which is enough to support a contract.
Even a promise which has no intrinsic value is a good and valuable consideration.

Let me ask you what does a notary public do? They authenticate documents.
What does the Bitcoin network do? It authenticates electronic data continuously.
A bitcoin allows access to the authentication system (Bitcoin peer to peer network). Like I said it is an access token.

I didn't say anything about electrical costs , stop flailing...

In Bitcoin didn't have any value every single transaction that ever happened involving them would be fraud. You know that's not true.
Bitcoins let you perform a function which you can not perform without them.

One more thing...
Property is determined by value? WTF are you talking about , that is one of the most nonsensical thing I ever heard.

Quote

Property is nomen generalissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest, including real and personal property, easements, franchises, and other incorporeal hereditaments. Lawrence v. Hennessy, 65 S. W. 717, 719, 165 Mo. 659; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 35; Scranton v. Wheeler, 21 Sup. Ct 48, 59, 179 U. S. 141, 45 L. Ed, 12G; Caro v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. (14 Jones & S.) 164, 168; Metropolitan City Ry. Co. v. Chicago W. D. Ry. Co., 87 111. 317; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Highways of Town of Mattoon, 43 N. E. 1100, 1101, 161 111. 247; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 69 Pac. 1050, 12 Okl. 82.

In its modern sense, confined to that which may be touched by the hand or seen by the eye. What is called "tangible property" has come to be, in most great enterprises, but the embodiment physically of an underlying life; a life that in its contribution to success is immeasurably more effective than mere physical embodiment Such, for example, are properties built upon franchises, on grants of government, on good will on trade-names, and the like. It is needless to say that to every Ingredient of property thus made up, the intangible as well as the tangible, that which is discernible to mind only as well as that susceptible to physical touch, equity extends appropriate protection. National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (U. S.) 119 Fed. 294, 299, 56 C. C. A. 19S, 60 L. R. A. 805.

You sir, do not have a clue what you are talking about. If we were in a strict common law system you would be right. However law was merged with equity after Erie v Tompkins. Property rights are not limited to the physical world. Sorry to burst your bubble. AT this point you are wasting your time ... and mine.

Network access is different than sending information. You said network access, not sending information. When I open my client, I connect to the network regardless if I am sending information or not (I am sending information in order to connect to the network, but I may own no Bitcoins and still send this information). The network is needed in order to send information. I can't send information through it unless I have access to it first or unless the network is created upon the sending of information. Edit How could the Bitcoins that are generated (including the first ones) be verified were it not for a preexisting network with at least one computer to do the confirming? After all, if they're not verified yet, we can't be sure they're Bitcoins yet, can we?

According to oregon law, property must have a given value. That is, something cannot be said to be one's property until you can establish some value of it. This was taken from someone's direct reference of the law itself. Whether or not you believe it's nonsensical is besides the point. That's one of the criteria property must have according to law given that the other poster's citation was accurate; it needs to have value. I wasn't arguing that it doesn't have value because of it's intangible nature.

The US dollar has value because it's recognized as 'legal tender' according to law. Bitcoin does not fall into this category, so you need another way to establish the value of each one individually; after all, each is unique. Each Bitcoin is unique unto itself, but since it is not legally recognized as a currency, each must be treated according to its own value, much like a painting. If Picasso paints a painting, one may sell for $1,000,000 and that indicates an instance of value associated with that individual painting. That does not imply that all of his paintings are worth $1,000,000 but only that that particular painting is. The same is true with Bitcoins, the difference being that it is the work of the computer and not an individual that creates them. When a transaction is made with a particular Bitcoin or group of Bitcoins, there is then an indication of value for those particular Bitcoins, but this does not imply that all the other Bitcoins are worth the same amount.

Each US dollar has it's own individual serial number, but the US dollar is recognized as having value because it is legal tender for all goods and services public or private. There is no such legal staple for Bitcoin.
Again, I can produce a simple java code (akin to the Bitcoin client and miner) that will do 'work,' such as producing a list of integers from 1-1000 by 2's (the list is akin to a Bitcoin). Someone may pay me $1,000,000 for this list that my computer has generated. Does that mean that if someone then steals that list that the 'victim' should be compensated $1,000,000? According to your argument, they should; after all, it was their property wasn't it? And isn't that property valuable? But, no, not all lists of integers 1-1000 by 2's are worth $1,000,000. That single list happened to be worth that much at that particular instance. But, according to law (specifically copyright law), that list could be stolen and generated millions of times over and distributed throughout the world with no legal consequence.