5 ms·

This is the only genuine ownership that exists in the digital realm. Digital assets that use a ledger run by a trusted third party can always be seized or froze

This is the only genuine ownership that exists in the digital realm. Digital assets that use a ledger run by a trusted third party can always be seized or frozen by that party.

lottin 4y ago
A trusted party is required to enforce ownership rights. If somebody steals your digital assets, the trusted party will seize the stolen assets and return them to their rightful owner. Without a trusted party that has the power to seize assets ownership cannot be enforced, in other words there cannot be ownership.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  In the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, that trusted third party is the government, which gives you security against theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, so you can keep your keys safe. Adding another trusted third party, like a gaming company, to the mix, to act as the custodian of who owns what, creates a much less-reliable / more-fragile private property system, as that custodian, at their own behest or that of a political faction who holds the reigns to the govenment, can deprive you of your control over the virtual asset. So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. The right balance between being protected by a trusted third party from theft and robbery, and being protected against a trusted third party stealing and robbing you, is the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, where the trusted third party only enforces rules against others trespassing your person or home, without having custody of your property on your behalf, so as to not have intimate knowledge of and control over everything you own.
  - lottin 4y ago
    > So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. Of course, a corrupt government is a threat to private property, but it's also true that a non-corrupt government (or some other form of authority) is necessary to enforce property rights. Crypto-currency enthusiasts mistakenly believe that by preventing any authority from interfering with the blockchain they eliminate the threat to private property. Instead, by doing that, they make property rights impossible.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      I just explained how the blockchain far from "preventing any authority from interfering", relies on authorities to protect individuals from theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, for people to be secure in their control of their keys. It strikes the right balance between being protected against the state stealing and robbing people, and people being protected by a state from theft and robbery. Unfortunately, anti-libertarian ideology, which is the dominant ideology in society now, cannot conceive of a need to maintain non-political checks on the power of the state, so the adoption of cryptocurrency, which imposes such checks, is very unsettling to its adherents.
      - lottin 4y ago
        You have not explained how the state enforces property rights on a blockchain. Consider this scenario: you forget your keys at a restaurant, where a stranger finds them and uses them to transfer your funds to their address. Since the transaction was not authorised by the rightful owner of the funds (you), the transaction isn't lawful. It violates your property rights as the owner of the funds. However there's nothing the state can do to reverse the transaction. Explain how the government enforces your property rights in these circumstances.
        CryptoPunk 4y ago
        In the example you provided, the state can compel the thief to forfeit his private key, under pain of imprisonment. But there are other cases where the state is not able to intervene, because of the immutability of the blockchain protocol. The limits placed on the state's power is a beneficial trade-off, where the state loses some power to protect people's private property, while losing even more power to rob people's private property.
        lottin 4y ago
        If the state can seize the thief's assets, it can also seize anybody else's assets. There's no way around it. And there's no trade-off. What are you talking about? Either the government can seize the assets or it cannot. The power that is needed to enforce property rights can also be used to violate these same rights.
- TimJRobinson 4y ago
  "you need a trusted third party to save you from yourself and enforce the rules" is the complete antethis of what blockchains are all about. Some real doublethink there that you think there can't be ownership without that. I alone have complete ownership of my Bitcoin and Ethereum, there are no trusted third parties and no one can take it away from me. That is real digital ownership.
  - lottin 4y ago
    Double-think why? To be clear, my position is that blockchains don't allow (or make very difficult) enforcing ownership rights. Also the idea that no one can steal or somehow gain control over someone else's crypto-currency balances has been thoroughly invalidated by experience, and therefore is a very silly point to make.

This is the only genuine ownership that exists in the digital realm. Digital assets that use a ledger run by a trusted third party can always be seized or frozen by that party.

lottin 4y ago

A trusted party is required to enforce ownership rights. If somebody steals your digital assets, the trusted party will seize the stolen assets and return them to their rightful owner. Without a trusted party that has the power to seize assets ownership cannot be enforced, in other words there cannot be ownership.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
In the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, that trusted third party is the government, which gives you security against theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, so you can keep your keys safe. Adding another trusted third party, like a gaming company, to the mix, to act as the custodian of who owns what, creates a much less-reliable / more-fragile private property system, as that custodian, at their own behest or that of a political faction who holds the reigns to the govenment, can deprive you of your control over the virtual asset. So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. The right balance between being protected by a trusted third party from theft and robbery, and being protected against a trusted third party stealing and robbing you, is the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, where the trusted third party only enforces rules against others trespassing your person or home, without having custody of your property on your behalf, so as to not have intimate knowledge of and control over everything you own.
- lottin 4y ago
  > So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. Of course, a corrupt government is a threat to private property, but it's also true that a non-corrupt government (or some other form of authority) is necessary to enforce property rights. Crypto-currency enthusiasts mistakenly believe that by preventing any authority from interfering with the blockchain they eliminate the threat to private property. Instead, by doing that, they make property rights impossible.
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    I just explained how the blockchain far from "preventing any authority from interfering", relies on authorities to protect individuals from theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, for people to be secure in their control of their keys. It strikes the right balance between being protected against the state stealing and robbing people, and people being protected by a state from theft and robbery. Unfortunately, anti-libertarian ideology, which is the dominant ideology in society now, cannot conceive of a need to maintain non-political checks on the power of the state, so the adoption of cryptocurrency, which imposes such checks, is very unsettling to its adherents.
    - lottin 4y ago
      You have not explained how the state enforces property rights on a blockchain. Consider this scenario: you forget your keys at a restaurant, where a stranger finds them and uses them to transfer your funds to their address. Since the transaction was not authorised by the rightful owner of the funds (you), the transaction isn't lawful. It violates your property rights as the owner of the funds. However there's nothing the state can do to reverse the transaction. Explain how the government enforces your property rights in these circumstances.
      - CryptoPunk 4y ago
        In the example you provided, the state can compel the thief to forfeit his private key, under pain of imprisonment. But there are other cases where the state is not able to intervene, because of the immutability of the blockchain protocol. The limits placed on the state's power is a beneficial trade-off, where the state loses some power to protect people's private property, while losing even more power to rob people's private property.
        lottin 4y ago
        If the state can seize the thief's assets, it can also seize anybody else's assets. There's no way around it. And there's no trade-off. What are you talking about? Either the government can seize the assets or it cannot. The power that is needed to enforce property rights can also be used to violate these same rights.
TimJRobinson 4y ago
"you need a trusted third party to save you from yourself and enforce the rules" is the complete antethis of what blockchains are all about. Some real doublethink there that you think there can't be ownership without that. I alone have complete ownership of my Bitcoin and Ethereum, there are no trusted third parties and no one can take it away from me. That is real digital ownership.
- lottin 4y ago
  Double-think why? To be clear, my position is that blockchains don't allow (or make very difficult) enforcing ownership rights. Also the idea that no one can steal or somehow gain control over someone else's crypto-currency balances has been thoroughly invalidated by experience, and therefore is a very silly point to make.