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].
Related links/relevant material:
- 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
- See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3)
- 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
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, 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, when can we expect videos from PFS 2019?
I think they are all already out.
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?
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.
… Is your question really whether I have heard of BSV? Seriously?