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?