Bitcoin is intangible, yet still ownable — an argument in legal theory

Several libertarian writers hold that bitcoin cannot be owned: as an intangible digital asset it fails the criteria for traditional ownership. This article sets out to refute that position.

A work of legal and philosophical theory rather than empirical research. The author examines the arguments of Konrad S. Graf and Stephan Kinsella against recognising property rights in bitcoin, and answers them in turn.

• The central argument is that the technology behind bitcoin makes it a scarce, rivalrous resource — the same condition that makes ordinary property require ownership rules.
• Conflicts over the use of bitcoin can and do arise, and the general function of property rights is to avoid such conflicts by assigning exclusive ownership; property rights should therefore extend to bitcoin.
• The article goes on to discuss what follows from recognising bitcoin as an ownable scarce resource in a private law society, including the difficulty of penalising bitcoin theft.

It illustrates the centre's work in communication theory and legal philosophy, showing that questions about digital property are not settled by technology alone but by what makes something ownable in the first place.