Ok I’m going to offend you but please just hear me out. Your post although it sounds like it was well written and well thought out is leading people astray from the legal definition of the value cryptocurrencies have in the court system. Talking about collectables and heirlooms is a somewhat accurate description but if you have your bitcoin stolen how can you go to a court of law and say “hey my rare collectable was stolen and I want my (money / property / bitcoin) returned to me”
The law doesn’t care about rare Pokemon cards so you talking about them in this way makes it all the more difficult for people to understand the real legal basis for value. Under your definition the courts are required to do absolutely nothing if your bitcoin is stolen. Made even worse no one actually “owns” bitcoins. People own their “private keys” but not their bitcoins. Do you see where this is going.
Your argument is actually confusing people because it misrepresents how the technology actually works. People don’t own bitcoin or a part of a bitcoin. People own keys and these keys control the ability to send or receive bitcoin. This is why your explanation is terrible. Do not advance this opinion anymore because in reality you are putting a wrong thought in peoples head and this wrong though is depriving them of the right to own their digital property.
The only correct explanation of what Bitcoin is under US law is a digital property similar to a domain name. If you don’t believe me read this paper:
PLEASE REWRITE THIS ENTIRE BLOG POST. Read what was written by Perkins Coie and accurately represent what bitcoin really is under US property law and tax law. Bitcoin is digital property similar to a domain name.