KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)

by Stephan Kinsella on September 19, 2019

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 25:34 — 35.1MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274.

[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].

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, governed by TOS.

Kinsella’s View:

Ideal Objects: Handles are non-scarce strings, unique only within X’s system.
Contractual: Users have a license, not ownership. The @X seizure shows platform control, not user property rights.
Implication: Claiming ownership implies restricting others’ devices, which Kinsella rejects.

3. Facebook Accounts/Profiles

Context: Profiles are data in Meta’s database, governed by TOS.

Kinsella’s View:

Non-Scarce: Profiles are replicable data, not tangible resources.
Contractual: Users have a license, not ownership. Meta’s control over accounts reflects server ownership.
Implication: IP-like claims over profiles are unjust restrictions.

4. Phone Numbers

Context: Numbers are assigned by telecom providers, leased via contracts.

Kinsella’s View:

Artificial Scarcity: Numbers are non-scarce strings, made unique by regulation.
Contractual: Users have a license, not ownership.
Implication: Claiming ownership restricts others’ use of their devices.

5. Places in Line (Queues)

Context: Queue positions are social or system-based priorities.

Kinsella’s View:

Not Property: Positions are not tangible resources but agreements.
Contractual/Norms: Selling a position is valid, but it’s not owned as property.
Implication: Legal enforcement as property is an overreach.

Conclusion

Kinsella argues that domain names, Twitter handles, Facebook accounts, phone numbers, and queue positions are not property due to their non-scarce or contractual nature. The @X seizure illustrates platform control, not user ownership, aligning with Kinsella’s view that only tangible, scarce resources can be owned.

***

Update: See also this Twitter thread:

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

My point is that bitcoin itself is not ownable. If you somehow “hack” then either the hacking violates rights (contract, trespass), or it doesn’t. If it does, that itself is the rights violation. Still doesn’t imply bitcoins are ownable things.

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

2/ as for nodes etc.–the point is, to own a bitcoin, implies the right to use force against some private computer owners to make them change their own computers’ data. Which is obviously wrong; thus, bitcoin can’t be owned, even in principle. Data doesn’t exist independently,

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

3/ as some separately existing, free-floating, ownable “thing.” Data is always just the way a substrate is arranged or impatterned. And that substrate is always a material, scarce resource that itself has to have an owner. Whether it’s paper, or rock, or magnetic tape, or

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

4/ some semiconductor memory chip or optical disk. Those things are already owned, so the “way they are arranged” can’t “also” be owned. If I own a red car that weighs 2000 lbs I don’t own red or redness or its weight. They are just features or characteristics–“properties”–OF

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

5/ the thing that I own. this is the fundamental mistake made by people who say you own a bitcoin. They are basically conflating possession with ownership. They mean you possess or control a bitcoin (by your keys), but they call this “ownership” because they are sloppy and stupid

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

6/ So the details of how hacking happens are relevant but ultimately boring. If it is done by trespass or fraud or contract breach, then it can be legally prohibited and punished. If not, not.

Stephan Kinsella

@NSKinsella

Oct 8, 2022

7/ I am curious if you disagree with any of the preceding, given your more detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the bitcoin encryption system and the ways people do hacking.

{ 13 comments… add one }

Joachim B September 29, 2019, 1:52 pm

Stephan, when can we expect videos from PFS 2019?

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella December 3, 2019, 10:28 pm
  
  I think they are all already out.
  
  ↩ ∞
Dennis Nezic October 15, 2019, 10:59 pm

It’s an interesting question: how would an ancap society deal with “stolen” bitcoins — for example, those that are brute-forced guessed, perhaps by weak brainwallets (passwords). It /feels/ very similar to accidentally dropping your wallet on a sidewalk, except as was explained in this podcast and elsewhere one doesn’t technically own “them”. Nevertheless, it still seems very unfair that someone should be able to simply take another person’s hard earned money like this. Assuming we knew who “unjustly” took them, would anyone object to the original “owner” initiating reasonable aggression against this individual to try to get them back or be otherwise compensated for the loss?

↩ ∞
Bilal Bach December 10, 2019, 1:54 pm

Love your thoughts. I just now found your blog and diving into it, as a deontic libertarian. I wonder if you heard of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV), it differs greatly from the one anarchists are controlling which has no value being unscalable.

↩ ∞
- Stephan Kinsella December 15, 2019, 11:34 am
  
  … Is your question really whether I have heard of BSV? Seriously?
  
  ↩ ∞