pull down to refresh
I think my best answer is that it is owned by the issuer. Although, other real bearer assets like gold coins seem like they are owned by their possessors. Of course, the jurisdiction in which one lives may disagree and then you only own them as much as you can hide them.
This was something that I found frustrating with this paper: If someone stole my bitcoin I'd use every tool at my disposal to get it back, including whatever legal system seemed expedient. But also I wouldn't be very hopeful. Because all bitcoin sees is if you can make a valid signature.
And even further, it seems like the Bitcoin network is the best system humans have thus far discovered for protecting the abilities of a person who can make such a valid signature.
So, unlike gold coins or cash, bitcoin is optimized for giving power to the possessor.
I don't think legal ownership has much to do with it (though the state may disagree and may choose to use all manner of violence to demonstrate it).
you only own them as much as you can hide them.
Oh this is good, hadn't thought of that.
If someone stole my bitcoin I'd use every tool at my disposal to get it back, including whatever legal system seemed expedient. But also I wouldn't be very hopeful. Because all bitcoin sees is if you can make a valid signature.
No, but neither cash - or bearer bonds - have any intrinsic title carrying mechanism, and I think that is why people like these and why people like Bitcoin. But in the latter case it is a feature, not bug. I feel (somewhat strongly but I try not getting emotional, lol) that the paper is a bit of a set-up, and can/will be abused as a call for KYC.
I know Bitcoiners from way back that went full-on "solarpunk" [1] and started championing total on-chain KYC - it's very hard for me to argue with them because they construct narratives with papers like this "backing up" their case that it's all for the best to embrace the overlords. "How else are you going to get your coin back bro?"
Now, say I steal your cash. The burden of proof that I stole your cash is on you. You also don't have the luxury of bank accounts in that case. How do you prove that you had the cash (answer: receipts) and how do you prove that I stole it (answer: through external evidence such as cameras, my whereabouts, and so on)? Nothing changes with Bitcoin except that my defense lawyer will try all the tricks to make the courts doubt that you ever owned it, but there is ample precedent because people have been convicted of stealing Bitcoin. If you cannot own Bitcoin, then all the convictions of crooks will have to be reversed.
I don't think legal ownership has much to do with it.
The chain is agnostic to legal systems, but this isn't mutual.
Is cash ownable?