Hacker News Reader

Comment by keithpeter | Hacker News Reader

"The judge said it is evident bitcoins do not possess the properties of tangible entities and acknowledged that they also do not offer exclusive control because transactions between users are structured in such a way that calls for the involvement of a third party."

I found this an interesting view of property but I suspect it may need a shift in definition over the next few decades.

View on HN

You're welcome to take it up with the Japanese Diet, but in 2015, 有形固定資産 ("tangible real property") is a thing which you can demand a bankrupt entity surrender to you if you can demonstrate ownership of it. The court held, sensibly, that BTC is not tangible real property.

See earlier layman's explanation here for more detail, if you're curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10018631

You will probably not find wonderful reporting on this subject because the generalist press routinely does not understand complicated specialist subjects (as is readily apparent to technically inclined people any time they stumble their way through our world). "有形固定資産 and 資産権 actually describe two different things" is a bit beyond most reporters trying to work their way through this story, including for the obvious reason.

What does 資産権 translate as? Google says "asset rights" but that doesn't quite sound right/make a lot of sense in this context

Property rights (財産権) in an asset. I could have written 財産権 there, too, and it may have been a better call for what I was going for.

Excellent summary in the comment linked to from above. Fascinating.

Isnt Japan one of the countries where you can go to prison for 'stealing' ingame items? Something is not right here.

Japan has extensive protection of non-tangible property rights! In addition to Arcanite Reapers and Bitcoin we have, you know, things that actually matter, too, like copyrights and and fishing rights and mineral rights and all the sorts of things you would expect a highly developed first world nation to recognize! Newspapers suggesting that a distinction between tangible and intangible assets means intangible assets cannot be owned should run this conclusion by their local attorney!

And software licenses must be protected in some way even though they strike me as intangible and 'mingled' with a third party system. Unless the actual sticker with a bar code is material enough. Interesting.

I did as well.

How do financial instruments (bonds, mutual funds, sporting bets) compare? Surely these would have protection from theft, even electronic versions. But calling Bitcoin a 'Financial Instrument' might open additional problems (regulation?)

The way I see it, you can't have a decentralised, unregulated currency as well as protection from theft from a government / legal system - the two are mutually exclusive. If you want your money to have some protection, use a regular currency with a regular bank - even if that bank goes out of business and its owners go to trial for embezzlement, you'll still get at least part of your money back.

If you have a chair in your front yard, and I walk off with it, that's theft. You wouldn't say "chairs are decentralised and unregulated, you can't expect protection from the government". If I burn it, you wouldn't say "I should have bought regular, fireproof furniture." I can't give it back to you, but I should still compensate you.

You can't really point to a particular Bitcoin and say, "That's my Bitcoin."

If I want to nitpick, music and video files are in the same category, they are not "tangible entities" either but they are protected by law.

I'll follow you;) In the law, copyrighted materials are defined as the product of the human mind, including imagination. If the blockchain contained a few characters typed by a human, then each bitcoins could be copyrighted. That would be funny.

I mean really, any student could tell you that property rights require enforcement.

It's an absurd view of property in this day and age.

I mean, can I not pay for electricity in Japan because I can't handle it, and it can be shared?

Can I steal a few ¥bn worth of electronic bonds, credit swaps, options, futures from a Japanese company then stick them the finger because they didn't really own them as they're all intangible?

Can I not pay for my cell phone service because I can't handle the RF waves?

Can I republish books by Japanese authors abroad and trample copyright, because the words aren't tangible?

I assume media piracy is legal too? No? Shock horror.

I don't know about the tort system in Japan, but if it's anything like most legal systems, this judgment reinforces the law and re-asserts that if you can't physically touch it, you're welcome to steal it.

Oh right, this is actually just the Japanese legal system doing what they do best, and going "corporate entity must be right, be deferential, be deferential!".

You can't point to a specific Bitcoin and say, "That's my Bitcoin.". You can say that you are owed X amount of BTC, but you cannot say that you are owed a specific coin. Thus, it's like cash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com