4 ms·

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 i

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.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  The state first needs to be informed of the theft, by the victim, to be able to seize the thief's assets. Moreover, there is a significant possibility that the state will fail in its attempt to seize the thief's assets. Both of these qualities of these respective situations are significantly different than a case of a virtual good held by a large trusted third party custodian. The latter means the state by default can easily discover who owns what, and is guaranteed to be able seize whatever it sets out to seize, at minimal enforcement and political cost. In other words, it's not a simple binary proposition, between the state being able to seize assets and not being able to. The power of the state to seize assets exists on a spectrum, with less power in the context of blockchains. I contend that this spot on the spectrum, that the blockchain places the state's power to confiscate and surveil on, is better for society at large.
  - lottin 4y ago
    Okay... the thing is that you can't give the state the ability to enforce property rights and simultaneously not give the state the ability to confiscate assets arbitrarily, because it's the same ability in both instances. If you restrict the state's ability to confiscate assets, then you're also restricting its ability to enforce property rights. And that's precisely what blockchains do, they make it very difficult for any authority to be able to confiscate assets, but this also means property rights are largely unenforceable. Which has been my point all along—blockchains do not allow its users to exert "genuine ownership" over anything. On the contrary, they prevent ownership rights from being exerted.
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      It changes our understanding of property rights from one of violence (state confiscation) to one of knowledge (knowledge of the private key). It is the biggest switch in your lifetime, yet you fail to see it. You keep falling back to governments enforcing ownership through violence. The state being able to confiscate things is the opposite of property rights. The universe enforcing it through math is a more natural state.
      - lottin 4y ago
        Property rights are legal claims that are independent of possession. If I lend you my car, you don't become the owner of the car. Being in possession of the car keys doesn't make you the owner either. If it would, it would mean that a thief could steal the keys, and become the new owner. That's the complete absence of property rights, because it would mean theft is legal. If you don't understand the difference between ownership and possession you need to go back to elementary school.
        randomhodler84 4y ago
        What if you didn’t need the state to enforce those rights? And everyone agreed the ledger was ownership. That is what we have today, and 13 years and counting. You are free to ignore that ledger.
        lottin 4y ago
        What if everyone agreed that pigs fly? They still wouldn't fly. Just because you repeat like a parrot what the bitcoin influencers tell you, it doesn't mean it's true.
        randomhodler84 4y ago
        And that’s fine, maybe you are the only sane person left in a would of cryptosilliness. I don’t parrot others, I am the Bitcoin influencer. Folks are parroting me.

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.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
The state first needs to be informed of the theft, by the victim, to be able to seize the thief's assets. Moreover, there is a significant possibility that the state will fail in its attempt to seize the thief's assets. Both of these qualities of these respective situations are significantly different than a case of a virtual good held by a large trusted third party custodian. The latter means the state by default can easily discover who owns what, and is guaranteed to be able seize whatever it sets out to seize, at minimal enforcement and political cost. In other words, it's not a simple binary proposition, between the state being able to seize assets and not being able to. The power of the state to seize assets exists on a spectrum, with less power in the context of blockchains. I contend that this spot on the spectrum, that the blockchain places the state's power to confiscate and surveil on, is better for society at large.
- lottin 4y ago
  Okay... the thing is that you can't give the state the ability to enforce property rights and simultaneously not give the state the ability to confiscate assets arbitrarily, because it's the same ability in both instances. If you restrict the state's ability to confiscate assets, then you're also restricting its ability to enforce property rights. And that's precisely what blockchains do, they make it very difficult for any authority to be able to confiscate assets, but this also means property rights are largely unenforceable. Which has been my point all along—blockchains do not allow its users to exert "genuine ownership" over anything. On the contrary, they prevent ownership rights from being exerted.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    It changes our understanding of property rights from one of violence (state confiscation) to one of knowledge (knowledge of the private key). It is the biggest switch in your lifetime, yet you fail to see it. You keep falling back to governments enforcing ownership through violence. The state being able to confiscate things is the opposite of property rights. The universe enforcing it through math is a more natural state.
    - lottin 4y ago
      Property rights are legal claims that are independent of possession. If I lend you my car, you don't become the owner of the car. Being in possession of the car keys doesn't make you the owner either. If it would, it would mean that a thief could steal the keys, and become the new owner. That's the complete absence of property rights, because it would mean theft is legal. If you don't understand the difference between ownership and possession you need to go back to elementary school.
      - randomhodler84 4y ago
        What if you didn’t need the state to enforce those rights? And everyone agreed the ledger was ownership. That is what we have today, and 13 years and counting. You are free to ignore that ledger.
        lottin 4y ago
        What if everyone agreed that pigs fly? They still wouldn't fly. Just because you repeat like a parrot what the bitcoin influencers tell you, it doesn't mean it's true.
        randomhodler84 4y ago
        And that’s fine, maybe you are the only sane person left in a would of cryptosilliness. I don’t parrot others, I am the Bitcoin influencer. Folks are parroting me.