Of course. The Bitcoins are still mine, even i keep them in a coinbase wallet. (ownsership vs perssesion). Now every btc owner gets bcc. The owner is me, not coinbase. I gave the persession of by btc to coinbase to trade them eventually, not to give up ownership. And as the owner that never 1) gave away usufruct I'm entiled to all profits from them. See the share/divident analogy.
1) At last not legaly binding, that had to be there at the very least in red flashing letters, possibly even then it would have been void.
I'm not sure if "the Bitcoins are still mine" is an appropriate interpretation - (just as with banks) you don't own those particular BTC that you deposited, these now belong to Coinbase, what you have is a claim, a debt, an IOU, a statement from Coinbase that they'll give you a particular amount BTC on demand. If the standard banking regulations apply (and why wouldn't they? Coinbase is licenced as a money transmitter) there are no any particular "named" BTC held in escrow particularly for you, there's an "account" that tallies how much BTC you "have", i.e., how much BTC Coinbase owes you - as their user agreement states, "you are the owner of the balance of each of your Currency Wallets".
In the absence of any specific agreements with Coinbase regarding usufruct rights, you wouldn't have them (just as you don't have usufruct rights when depositing currency in a bank account) - you don't own that BTC, Coinbase owes you some fixed amount of BTC, and that's that.
Of course, that would be a nice thing to test in courts - after all they decide who owes what to whom, not the algorithms of BTC/BCC.
> The Bitcoins are still mine, even i keep them in a coinbase wallet.
Right, that's governed by your contract with Coinbase, and is the service they offer.
> Now every btc owner gets bcc.
No, everyone controlling a BTC wallet is now also controlling a BCC (or BCH, I've seen both used as the abbreviation) wallet with an equal number of coins.
I'm guessing rights to coins on alternative chains that Coinbase ends up controlling due to BTC forks are not covered in your contract with Coinbase.
There is a difference between ownership and possion. Technically (in the meaning "how it is realized in computer code") bcc is given to the person possessing btc. But by the law the owner is entitled to the profits of a thing. But coinbase does not own my coins, it merely posses them.
> There is a difference between ownership and possion
Yes, ownership is a matter of law. By what law does the act of a fork which grants possession of BCH to controllers of BTC wallets grant ownership to anyone else?
> But by the law the owner is entitled to the profits of a thing
That's, at best, imprecise. I own money, which I hold on a bank, which contracts a certain rate of interest (which may be zero) to be paid on it while I hold it there. I absolutely do not own any profits the bank is able to realize through holding the money (any more than, beyond those contracted, I am liable for any costs associated with their holding of money); indeed, their ownership of the net profits realizable by having the money in their hands is central to their business model. (There are restrictions on their ability to use the money they are holding to prevent undue risk of them not being able to pay my money back, but if they gain a windfall, I don't share in it.)
The real question seems to be legally whether BCH is a gift to those owning BTC or those possessing it. In the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary, I think the law is likely to say that who possession was given to also determines who ownership was given to. If I give a thousand dollars cash to everyone I see wearing a green hat, and one of those people had borrowed the hat, the owner of the hat is going to have a difficult time arguing that they own the thousand dollars.
>The real question seems to be legally whether BCH is a gift to those owning BTC or those possessing it. In
Bch is not a gift. Who should have gifted it? Who is the previous owner? How did the previous owner aquire it? It is a "fructus" of btc. And that belongs to the owner.
This right can be signed away, with life estate or usufructus. But that's a big deal. That can't be somewho implied in a sentence hidden somewhere in a long ToS.
>You don't own Bitcoin if you don't control the keys.
That's wrong, and obviously so. That concept is "possession" and not "ownership".
What they write in their ToS doesn't matter, it does not change fundamentals of porperty law. (Well, as every legal argument on the internet it depends on your jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the coinbase, as coinbase resides in multiple)
1) At last not legaly binding, that had to be there at the very least in red flashing letters, possibly even then it would have been void.