You Might Not Actually Own Your Bitcoins, Says Law Expert

[qubit]

Oops.

The price of Bitcoin has dropped by 75 percent in the past year, so anyone who invested heavily at the peak will have lost a lot of money. And now there's more bad news for crypto-currency investors to worry about: they may not legally own the digital assets they have purchased.

https://www.sciencealert.com/legally-you-may-not-actually-own-your-bitcoins-says-law-expert

 

[R-T-B]

My colleagues and I have recently completed research showing that courts in England and Wales are unlikely to identify digital tokens as property, since the law does not recognise possession of intangible items.

In short, you own them as much as you own that video game, and that's only in england. Everywhere else they are pretty much considered full property.

BTW, that's a messed up law england. You can't own digital assets? Shame. So if someone hijacks your steam account, it's only a EULA violation because it was really just intangibles? I mean seriously?

 

[the54thvoid]

Our government is filled with luddite assholes who know little about digital technology. We have awful digital copyright laws which are so over-arching and vague that they're probably not even defensible in court.

 

[lexluthermiester]

In short, you own them as much as you own that video game, and that's only in england. Everywhere else they are pretty much considered full property.

This is correct. People who generate bitcoin of any kind are lawfully considered to be the creators of said bitcoin the same as if they'd created anything else.

BTW, that's a messed up law england. You can't own digital assets? Shame. So if someone hijacks your steam account, it's only a EULA violation because it was really just intangibles? I mean seriously?

Yes, England has a whole bunch of messed up laws. That doesn't make it a completely bad place to live though.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's a convoluted ruling. How do pounds on a bank statement that don't exist in reality qualify as property then? Property = value = something that can be claimed as damages if stolen. It doesn't have intrinsic value, no, just like a software license doesn't but someone had to pay (either in terms of hardware/power or purchasing) to get it in the first place and there's an active market for trading it. They're stretching reason beyond the breaking point.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually read these rulings so they may have a legitimate reason to rule as they do. Considering how many courts are in agreement, I'd say it's probably more of a problem with language in the law than interpretation thereof.

 

[windwhirl]

"the law does not recognise possession of intangible items."

That's... stupid? Intangible items, for me at least, could mean trademarks, patents, designs, licenses and everything in between.

I mean, come on, even in Argentina bitcoin is somewhat recognized as money or financial asset (if only for the purpose of taxing the crap out of it), and that's considering our lawmakers are as idiotic and lazy as they come...

 

[Deleted member 158293]

If you write your private bitcoin key on a piece of paper, would you own this key then? Or use a paper wallet? Physically locked Opendime key? Those are tangible.

Funny considering fiat currencies mostly only exist digitally also.

 

[R-T-B]

If you write your private bitcoin key on a piece of paper, would you own this key then?

In most countries yes. Unsure about UK because of this article (you'd only own the paper I assume).

It only ceases to be yours when you enter into a contract surrendering rights.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you write your private bitcoin key on a piece of paper, would you own this key then? Or use a paper wallet? Physically locked Opendime key? Those are tangible.

Funny considering fiat currencies mostly only exist digitally also.

Presumably not because that's just a document saying an intangible thing exists. The paper is tangible, the cryptocurrency still is not.