zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
As a crypto unbeliever I hate this too. Legal enforcement legitimizes crypto as property. It expands the definition of property by institutionally conferring the status of "owned" to a functional configuration of bits distributed over thousands of computers. Do we have this concept for other things? yes. But I'd rather like to contract the space of property rather than expand it.

>>kelsey+Ob
I think you have to get with the times a little. Crypto is an asset (some coins a security) and has been recognized as such under the law for several years, and it's taxable.

Crypto is on the balance sheet of individuals, businesses, financial institutes and even at least one nation (El Salvador). There's crypto index funds and ETFs trading on wallstreet.

And here you are philosophizing about whether crypto can really be owned? You're a decade too late.