Quote from: netrin on September 13, 2011, 11:47:14 PM

Quote from: bitcoinhead on September 13, 2011, 10:11:17 PM

I'd argue that bitcoins ARE something, and can have legal standing.

I won't argue strongly against you, but your analogy is not entire parallel. The key pairs are not the bitcoins. The transactions are not the bitcoins. Bitcoins are an idea by consensus. What we are signing is "I send 50 bitcoins". I can say "I send you a postcard" but those are only words. The postcard might exist. The bitcoins don't. On the other hand, law seems to accept "intellectual property" as a thing with defensible and transferable ownership. I happen to disagree.

To me, it's a bit like playing tea with the stuffed animals. I can claim to pour some tea into your cup, and you can accept that I've done that, but it's all just imaginary.

EDIT: "legally binding contract" - ah yeah, OK. I hear what you are saying. But I don't think the bitcoins are the contract. The contract is "I promise to perform a series of actions that will result in a network agreeing to verify that I've performed those actions, in exchange for your pogs". If you deliver the pogs and I fail to perform the actions, then I'm acting fraudulently. I still hold that bitcoins don't exist any more than a blown kiss, whether signed or not.

I quite like the playing with tea analogy of what Bitcoin is. Because it is exactly that! Imaginary, yet we give it value, which is what everything in this world is as well.
I guess the problem lies in getting people to accept a new imaginary "thing" that is even more imaginary than the paper money.

Lets hope the French courts soon have a draft for this we can look at!