KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)

[From my Webnote series] On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist? Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274; also as PFP215 | Stephan Kinsella, Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). For the Q&A session, see KOL272-2 | Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019). [Update: For an article based on the transcript, see "Nobody Owns Bitcoin," StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019). See also Pavel Slutskiy, "Yes, You Should Own Bitcoin,” J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no. 1 (2024): 1–19. Update: See KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022).] This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP215. Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019) [PFP218]. Related links/relevant material:  KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) OTHERS: Leon Wankum, "Bitcoin is a Possession, Not Property," Bitcoin Magazine (Oct. 2, 2023) Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property Marty Bent, "Is Bitcoin a New Type of Property?", Bitcoin Magazine (Jul. 29, 2022) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL249 | WCN's Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne Portugal Tax Authorities Clarify That Buying Or Selling Cryptocurrency Is Tax-Free In the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept., see NOW THAT BITCOIN IS CONSIDERED PROPERTY IN THE UK, RECLAIMING RANSOMED ASSETS SENT TO EXCHANGES IS MUCH EASIER OTHERS: WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as "property" "instead of" as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions.... This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government tax evasion suit might want to use. Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland: "Bitcoin Association Switzerland reports that, according to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, no VAT applies to bitcoin in Switzerland. The transfer of bitcoin doesn’t constitute delivery of goods or services, and therefore it’s not subject to VAT." for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; SEC: US Securities Laws 'May Apply' to Token Sales Update: @NSKinsella I don't know if you ever wrote about this, but would you consider domain names to be private property? After all, in practice, they are scarce, and it's usually not possible to have two people run websites using the same domain name simultaneously. Same with IPs. — Kadaververwertungsanstalt (@witheredsummer) July 8, 2025 From Grok:   Stephan Kinsella’s Arguments on Digital Ownership Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist, argues in his podcast episode KOL274: Nobody Owns Bitcoin (2019 Property and Freedom Society) that Bitcoin cannot be owned as property because it is not a scarce, tangible resource. This response extends Kinsella’s arguments to domain names, Twitter handles, Facebook accounts/profiles, phone numbers, and places in line (queues), incorporating details about the @X handle seizure by X Corp in July 2023 and the role of ICANN in domain name governance. Context: The @X Handle Seizure When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in October 2022 and rebranded it as X in July 2023, the @X handle was reassigned from its original owner, Gene X Hwang, to X Corp for corporate branding. Below, we address the incident and its implications. Did Elon Musk Unilaterally Seize Accounts Like @X? Yes, X Corp, under Musk’s control, took the @X handle from Gene X Hwang without prior consent in July 2023 for the platform’s rebranding. No evidence suggests Musk seized accounts for personal use; the @X reassignment was for corporate use. No other specific account seizures are widely reported. Was This Permitted by the Terms of Service (TOS)? The seizure was allowed under Twitter’s updated 2023 TOS, which permitted X Corp to reclaim usernames for branding purposes. The TOS gave the company discretion to reassign handles without notice, though this sparked criticism for lacking transparency. Did Musk Apologize or Offer Alternatives/Compensation? Musk did not personally apologize. X Corp offered Hwang alternative handles (e.g., @X12345678998765) and minor perks (e.g., merchandise), but no financial compensation. Hwang expressed mild disappointment but accepted the reassignment. Articles on the @X Incident The Telegraph: “Elon Musk takes over @X Twitter account without paying owner” (July 26, 2023) Link Details the reassignment without payment, offering alternative handles. Forbes: “X Seizes @X Handle From Longtime Twitter User Without Compensation” (July 26, 2023) Link Notes the lack of compensation and TOS permissibility. Mashable: “Elon Musk’s X/Twitter is taking usernames now, and users aren’t happy” (July 26, 2023) Link Covers user backlash and TOS implications. Gizmodo: “Elon Musk’s X Corp Snags @X Handle From User Without Payment” (July 26, 2023) Link Discusses the abrupt transfer and lack of payment. The New York Times: “Twitter’s Rebrand to X Prompts Username Controversy” (July 27, 2023) Link Mentions the @X incident amid rebranding chaos. Kinsella’s Core Argument on Bitcoin and Property Kinsella’s libertarian framework posits that property rights resolve conflicts over scarce, tangible resources. Key points: Scarcity: Property rights apply only to scarce resources (e.g., land). Non-scarce entities, like information, don’t require ownership. Ideal Objects: Digital constructs (e.g., Bitcoin’s blockchain) are infinitely replicable, non-scarce “ideal objects.” Bitcoin: Bitcoin is information, not a tangible resource. Private keys grant control, not ownership, as claiming ownership restricts others’ use of their hardware. Extending Kinsella’s Arguments Kinsella would argue that domain names, Twitter handles, Facebook accounts, phone numbers, and queue positions are not owned as property due to their non-scarce or contractual nature. 1. Domain Names (ICANN) Definition: Domain names (e.g., example.com) are human-readable aliases for IP addresses, mapped via DNS. ICANN oversees DNS, accredits registrars, and resolves disputes via UDRP. Kinsella’s View: Not Scarce: Domain names are non-scarce strings; scarcity is artificial via ICANN’s system. Contractual: Registration is a lease, not ownership. Users “own” the contract, not the string. Cybersquatting: Kinsella defends first registration and resale, rejecting IP-based claims as artificial scarcity. 2. Twitter Handles Context: Handles (e.g., @X) are identifiers in X’s database,