3 ms·

In the modern world there is no 100% ownership (unseizable bearer assets), as there is no 100% debt (enslavement in case of default).

lpapez 2y ago
This statement is predicated on redefining the words ownership and debt to fit your arbitrary definition, instead of having them follow their conventional meaning accepted by society - as defined by dictionaries for example. What is the point?
- nivertech 2y ago
  > redefining the words you missed the "100%" modifier in front of the words > What is the point? 1. Clarity 2. Understanding stuff from the first principles 3. Oaktree Capital claims that there are only two asset classes, I argue that there is an infinite continuum of asset classes: from 100% owning something to 100% being owned
miki123211 2y ago
Cryptocurrency enthusiasts will respectfully disagree. This is the one and only thing crypto is actually good at, if you don't make a mistake and let yourself get hacked, no amount of force will let anybody seize your crypto without your consent.
- digital-cygnet 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Once you open up the possibility of physical force the guarantees of cryptocurrency look pretty thin. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- nivertech 2y ago
  crypto is not a bearer asset[1], it's not unseizable[2], and it's not guaranteed to be a store-of-value in the long term (it has only been around for 17 years vs gold which was used for this purpose for 5000 years) also there is no ownership in crypto, only partial control of the entries on the ledger via private key -- 1. 99% of cryptocurrencies are based on blockchains or DLTs (Dsitributed/Decentralized Ledger Technology) - ledgers or Systems of Record - so they are registered assets, not bearer assets. You change the ledger (e.g. by forking it) and now the ownership record has changed 2. Fiat is backed by violence -> https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ There have been several divorce cases where spouses have tried to evade funds using crypto, and the court could still confiscate them, by threatening with jail time

lpapez 2y ago

This statement is predicated on redefining the words ownership and debt to fit your arbitrary definition, instead of having them follow their conventional meaning accepted by society - as defined by dictionaries for example. What is the point?

nivertech 2y ago
> redefining the words you missed the "100%" modifier in front of the words > What is the point? 1. Clarity 2. Understanding stuff from the first principles 3. Oaktree Capital claims that there are only two asset classes, I argue that there is an infinite continuum of asset classes: from 100% owning something to 100% being owned

miki123211 2y ago

Cryptocurrency enthusiasts will respectfully disagree. This is the one and only thing crypto is actually good at, if you don't make a mistake and let yourself get hacked, no amount of force will let anybody seize your crypto without your consent.

digital-cygnet 2y ago
I respectfully disagree. Once you open up the possibility of physical force the guarantees of cryptocurrency look pretty thin. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
nivertech 2y ago
crypto is not a bearer asset[1], it's not unseizable[2], and it's not guaranteed to be a store-of-value in the long term (it has only been around for 17 years vs gold which was used for this purpose for 5000 years) also there is no ownership in crypto, only partial control of the entries on the ledger via private key -- 1. 99% of cryptocurrencies are based on blockchains or DLTs (Dsitributed/Decentralized Ledger Technology) - ledgers or Systems of Record - so they are registered assets, not bearer assets. You change the ledger (e.g. by forking it) and now the ownership record has changed 2. Fiat is backed by violence -> https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ There have been several divorce cases where spouses have tried to evade funds using crypto, and the court could still confiscate them, by threatening with jail time