4 ms·

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

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.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    So, you have "the universe enforcing property rights through math", but when you arrive at your house, it's taken over by someone else. What now?
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      Like I leave the house…
- CryptoPunk 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. To some extent that's true, but it could still be true that certain limits on the state's power to seize private property make private property rights more secure overall, because: 1. You can increase the cost for the state to seize private property, which would make it less likely that the state does so in cases where there is less justification, i.e. when doing so violates private property rights. 2. You can make it so that the state can only seize private property when a person reports a theft, by denying the state the ability to engage in mass-surveillance over who owns what. This limits when the state can seize private property to when private property has been stolen, and largely prevents it from seizing private property when it has not. Cryptocurrency has both of these effects.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Cryptocurrency has both of these effects. So, you have "both of these effects through cryptocurrency", but when you arrive at your house, it's taken over by someone else. What now?

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.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  So, you have "the universe enforcing property rights through math", but when you arrive at your house, it's taken over by someone else. What now?
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    Like I leave the house…
CryptoPunk 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. To some extent that's true, but it could still be true that certain limits on the state's power to seize private property make private property rights more secure overall, because: 1. You can increase the cost for the state to seize private property, which would make it less likely that the state does so in cases where there is less justification, i.e. when doing so violates private property rights. 2. You can make it so that the state can only seize private property when a person reports a theft, by denying the state the ability to engage in mass-surveillance over who owns what. This limits when the state can seize private property to when private property has been stolen, and largely prevents it from seizing private property when it has not. Cryptocurrency has both of these effects.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Cryptocurrency has both of these effects. So, you have "both of these effects through cryptocurrency", but when you arrive at your house, it's taken over by someone else. What now?