This whole thread is built upon a fundamental misconception

You assume that there is a thing called "The Law" or "Legal System", which you conceive as being eternal, "underlying" as made out of stone.

Yet in reality there is no such thing.


You can go out on the street, pick some random person, force him by pointing a gun at his head to go to a "court" you have set up, and read to him the verdict, that his money is seized as illegal, because it belongs to the poor hungry people of Africa and was taken away from them by capitalism and imperialism. Chances are that that person will yield and hand over pocket money to you.

But in no way this makes your action legal. Nor did the person hand over the money because you where in right, but because of the gun.

Please note the important point:
You must not draw conclusions about the nature of the money involved here.
You may only draw conclusions about the nature and the meaning of the gun.


In a similar manner, you can imagine some state or legal system in the world declaring Bitcoin as illegal for reason of [insert random ideology here]. Then this state or legal system can use its mechanisms of power to seize Bitcoins whenever a user interacts with some entity under the control of this legal system.

Such actions can be quite effective for people entrapped in such a legal system, but this fact doesn't turn the provisions of such a legal system into an absolute truth. You might be drawing conclusions about the nature of such a legal system itself, but you can't use it as foundation for drawing conclusions about the nature of things like the Bitcoins involved.


The decision to handle and classify Bitcoins in a specific way is a political decision. It is pointless to use logic to derive what is the matter of fact in this respect.