pull down to refresh
218 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 18 Jun freebie \ parent \ on: My project got hacked and user funds were stolen devs
I'm not interested in changing your mind, but I am genuinely curious.
If I break into your home when you aren't home, is anything I "take" not stolen because your lock was weak enough to break? Your home is connected to "public" like his server is connected to the public internet, isn't it?
Do you believe in physical property rights, but not digital ones? I suspect you either view digital property rights differently than physical ones, or don't believe in property rights of any kind. If the former, how do you explain the difference?
Thanks for being curious! Sometimes it takes a good question to make me solidify my thinking.
If I break into your home when you aren't home, is anything I "take" not stolen because your lock was weak enough to break?
I believe that to own property is to have the ability to control the destiny of that property. The surest way to own something is to destroy it -- to realize the destiny of the property by eliminating its value as property. If someone else was able to control "my" property, then it is no longer my property, exclusively.
However, we have a legal system that would assert that I am still the "owner" of the property. That legal system can attempt to "clawback" the property and return it to my control. So, in a way, even after the property has left my direct control, I still have some control over the destiny of that property -- insofar as the property could potentially be returned to me by the legal system that enforces my "property rights".
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; ~ John Adams
Property rights are great! Enforcing property rights encourages investment, discourages the destruction of property and is key to a prosperous society. But property rights can also be abused to weaponize "legalized violence" to the advantage of a particular class. Communism isn't the solution, but the communists are really good at pointing out the downsides of private property rights in practice. They tend to increase class inequality, for example. Don't get me started on "intellectual property".
Do you believe in physical property rights, but not digital ones?
I believe property rights do not exist in nature. They are constructs of states/governments/societies/communities and they exist insofar as they can be enforced.
In nature, one's ownership of property would be mostly a function of their ability to conquer and defend exclusive control over property (Ghengis Khan warlord-style).
Since Bitcoin cannot be so easily "clawed back" by a legal system using violence, I argue that BTC is somewhat immune to any external property rights. It has it's own system of enforcing ownership that relies on entropy and fundamental truths about nature/physicality.
Having "ownership" of some sats is to have the knowledge of a private key (such that you have the ability to control those sats). A private key is just a large number that is difficult to guess. Is it possible to own a number?
In the same way, do you anything (physical) fully? Couldn't the state use enough force to take or destroy everything you own? Could some random person take or destroy your property? I don't see "ownership" as a binary outcome as the legal system does. Ownership, naturally, is more like a vector.
The more power the individual wields, the more likely their ownership of a piece of property is to be exclusive. Bitcoin gives anyone access to immense power. It does it by weaponizing entropy instead of violence. Namely, the entropy required to create a secure private key and the entropy created by consuming tremendous energy.
reply