Philosophically, we are very closely aligned.
Practically, though, I can tell you that this won't work:
"Giving you a vote is less work than writing you a check or giving you cash. Technically if I write you a check it's the bank that's giving you the gift not me. So, I'm not sure I agree with you there. "
The bank is the custodian of your funds in your account which you have a legal claim to. Therefore, the gift is from you.
The blockchain is not your custodian. You do not own the Steem your vote gives out. The steem your vote tags for later payment doesn't even exist yet. It's literally impossible to be yours, so you cannot gift it. All you have done is vote for who should get disbursement in a stake-weighted fashion.
If you don't own it, LEGAL TITLE, you cannot gift it.
This is game over. There is no legal argument you can counter this fact with.
You will need the sword to effect the changes you want, not the pen or the courtroom.
PS - You have my sword, incidentally, should you choose to go that route.
I actually think you an error here. When you deposit funds the bank legally owns them. They don't tell you that, but that appears to be the way it works. That's why things like bail ins are possible and legal. So, the idea that it's a gift with a check but not a block doesn't seem to hold.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're confusing the idea of having a counterparty with having a legal claim to your account.
Yes, the bank is your counterparty because they can spend your money without your permission (a separate problem).
No, because you still have a legal claim to the money. You can claim title. Having a legal claim is different than technically owning, but for our purposes here, it's the same.
There is no argument you can make that you own un-created rewards on a block-chain. You cannot own something that doesn't exist.
Whataboutism for your checking accounts is irrelevant.
I guarantee you that your argument would get nowhere in court, which as we have already established, is not a commentary on the validity of it otherwise.
PS - The appropriate tool for your grievances is the sword, as you cannot win with the pen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And you think the state holds legal
Title to decentralized currency to grant them a jurisdiction in the first place?
Where's the split title occur?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I don't. As I noted, I don't agree with the state's argument.
What the state does have is guns, prosecutors, and immunity from the law. And they are the ones who decide if you can call something a "gift" or not.
Just facts, no philosophy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pretty sure I own the block chain. 22k/25M stake in this biatch. The island. She's mine. AHAHAHAHAHAH.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, no, you don't. Not anymore than you would own a company for owning well under 1% of the shares.
However, this does present an interesting tax question - what if you process the block on your own witness server that handles the disbursement? There may be an argument that if you actually own/process that block officially, the legal status of transactions within that block, for you, might change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit