Huh, damn I should lead with that next time I'm debating a shitcoiner, "how do you define when a digital item is real?".

I think that's an excellent question, if a digital item was to be considered real then we certainly would need a different definition than a physical item where you can touch it. So could a digital item be considered real in the first place? Is it worth creating a definition of realness for something that isn't possible? This really is the heart of what bitcoin is intended to represent, the very first (and foreseeable only) instantiation of digital scarcity, could that be extended to a new definition of realness fit for the digital realm? I think so, but I'll have to spend some time tonight thinking about the metaphysics of what it means for something to be real.