> genuine ownership
"Not your keys, not your coins" is the opposite of genuine ownership. Actual ownership is not lost by losing possession of the thing being owned. That's the whole point of ownership.
"Not your keys, not your coins" is the opposite of genuine ownership. Actual ownership is not lost by losing possession of the thing being owned. That's the whole point of ownership.
Adding another trusted third party, like a gaming company, to the mix, to act as the custodian of who owns what, creates a much less-reliable / more-fragile private property system, as that custodian, at their own behest or that of a political faction who holds the reigns to the govenment, can deprive you of your control over the virtual asset.
So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. The right balance between being protected by a trusted third party from theft and robbery, and being protected against a trusted third party stealing and robbing you, is the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, where the trusted third party only enforces rules against others trespassing your person or home, without having custody of your property on your behalf, so as to not have intimate knowledge of and control over everything you own.
Of course, a corrupt government is a threat to private property, but it's also true that a non-corrupt government (or some other form of authority) is necessary to enforce property rights. Crypto-currency enthusiasts mistakenly believe that by preventing any authority from interfering with the blockchain they eliminate the threat to private property. Instead, by doing that, they make property rights impossible.
It strikes the right balance between being protected against the state stealing and robbing people, and people being protected by a state from theft and robbery.
Unfortunately, anti-libertarian ideology, which is the dominant ideology in society now, cannot conceive of a need to maintain non-political checks on the power of the state, so the adoption of cryptocurrency, which imposes such checks, is very unsettling to its adherents.
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.
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.
The state being able to confiscate things is the opposite of property rights. The universe enforcing it through math is a more natural state.
I don’t parrot others, I am the Bitcoin influencer. Folks are parroting me.
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.
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.
Weaker animals get chased out, and their habitat destroyed or taken over by stronger animals. So your "answer" is violence?
What a great world you want us to live in. And one that we already have lived in, and a world in which some countries still live. Good luck finding money for protection rackets.
I think you are advocating for violence by the state in this question. We are just animals who have invented state violence. Bitcoin et al is another way.
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.
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?
I alone have complete ownership of my Bitcoin and Ethereum, there are no trusted third parties and no one can take it away from me. That is real digital ownership.
Also the idea that no one can steal or somehow gain control over someone else's crypto-currency balances has been thoroughly invalidated by experience, and therefore is a very silly point to make.