>>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 asse

>>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.