Thoughts on ownership of bitcoins

Recently Vin Armani suggested that u can't own bitcoins, cos it's a number. I disagree. Ownership means exclusive rights to posses and use at one's pleasure. First of all, bitcoins aren't numbers, private keys are. U can guess any private key in principle (such event would be similar to losing/finding a banknote with far slimmer chances). But bitcoins themselves are part of social contract of Bitcoin network, now with family of chains no less. When billions of bitcoins were created due to a bug on BTC in 2010, the social contract was breached and people wrote code and took measures to restore it. When Bitcoin Gold/Diamond and others were created with much higher supply, social contract evolved and now we've power law distribution of value and attention, chains with major changes are in the tail

U can prove ownership of crypto in different ways:

• first-grade proof is a signature of these coins that no one else can provide
• second-grade proof is culture - I know that Satoshi owns up to 1mln coins from various sources of evidence, so if anyone claims its theirs, they have to provide if not first-grade proof (say, keys were lost), then big enough cultural proof, the pile of evidence - which Craig is obviously failed to do cos he's a fraud. With Memo (and even earlier - with Genesis coinbase) history of cultural events, especially important ones, is starting to be recorded on the chain which elevates weight of such second-grade proofs. Sooner or later courts will recognize it in inevitable disputes over crypto ownership

On ViaBTC's Bitcoin Cat initiative and circulating ideas about forking BSV to give Craig Satoshi's coins without Satoshi's keys:

Touching someone else's (by admitting u don't have the keys in form of arbitrary protocol change) UTXOs will be theft, violation of NAP. It's a lesser violation with Bitcoin Cat cos it seems that they don't intend to takeover the main chain (Satoshi's and others' coins on BCH will be safe), it's not exactly theft in pre-2009 era, but it's still a violation - clean start with a new rule ("give this foundation X coins after Y block") would be preferable and in accordance with voluntarism. All violations of NAP should be answered with minimum necessary force (judged by the defendant), so I suggest to loudly call Haipo's actions "theft" until his protocol change will be a clear fork. If it ever actually happens at all, ofc