Still the application of demo dat rule is not a forgone conclusion when it comes to bitcoins. It doesn't apply to legal tender and it also doesn't apply to bearer instruments (i.e. casino chip), or negotiable instruments (i.e. a check). It is at least plausible a judge would rule that bitcoins are more like those exceptions than real property. Until we see a court case we won't know for sure. I am not a judge so what I think matters little but a bitcoin has more in common with a casino chip (a bearer instrument) then it does with a car (which is a unique specific piece of real property).
Note: to be clear I am not saying I have the answer just pointing out the law is pretty slow to react to technological changes. This and countless other questions will eventually be decided but the timescale is measured in decades.
+1
That whole post was what I wanted to express but wasn't able to, thank you. It will be interesting to see the actual legal decisions when they start coming up -- I bet we'll get both interpretations initially but my guess is the same: bitcoins may not be formal currency but handling them as unique pieces of property makes little sense.