5 ms·

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

by lottin 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    Like I leave the house…
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      So, no answer.
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        I’d probably just burn it down and build another one. It’s a silly question. I didn’t say all things, including your house are protected by math, I said Bitcoin was the first thing ever that didn’t need state violence to enforce the money.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > I’d probably just burn it down and build another one. Again, a non-answer > It’s a silly question It's not. You're telling us that, quote, "The state being able to confiscate things is the opposite of property rights. The universe enforcing it through math is a more natural state." So. You bought your house with bitcoin, and now you have your property rights through universe and math. You arrive at your property that you have rights to, and it's occupied by someone else. For example, by the person who sold you the house. That person doesn't want to move out. Now what. As always, crypto-proponents dismiss this as a "silly question". Because, of course, you're only focused on "state can seize your property", completely forgetting all the other things that state does. Like enforcing the property rights. Without this, your universe can enforce exactly zero through math.
        randomhodler84 5y ago
CryptoPunk 5y 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 5y 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?

by lottin 5y ago

randomhodler84 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  Like I leave the house…
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    So, no answer.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      I’d probably just burn it down and build another one. It’s a silly question. I didn’t say all things, including your house are protected by math, I said Bitcoin was the first thing ever that didn’t need state violence to enforce the money.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > I’d probably just burn it down and build another one. Again, a non-answer > It’s a silly question It's not. You're telling us that, quote, "The state being able to confiscate things is the opposite of property rights. The universe enforcing it through math is a more natural state." So. You bought your house with bitcoin, and now you have your property rights through universe and math. You arrive at your property that you have rights to, and it's occupied by someone else. For example, by the person who sold you the house. That person doesn't want to move out. Now what. As always, crypto-proponents dismiss this as a "silly question". Because, of course, you're only focused on "state can seize your property", completely forgetting all the other things that state does. Like enforcing the property rights. Without this, your universe can enforce exactly zero through math.
        randomhodler84 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y 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 5y 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?