Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[JorgeStolfi]

Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there.  Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.

This is unsolvable. Please ponder about the definition of 'stolen' in a system where property is defined by 'knowledge of a key'.
There is no way to mathematically demonstrate that a transaction, for example, was fraudulent. Or that if two people know the same key then one is a rightful owner (whatever that means) and the other is not.

Precisely!

One fundamental flaw of  cryptocoins (that supportes consider a feature) is that they are intended to eliminate the notion of "property" for money, and leave only "possession" instead.

You have "possession" of something if you physically can use it or dispose of it as you like.

The thing is your "property" if, and only if, the  government thinks you should have possession of it, and you can get his cops and courts to get it.

If a thief steals your car, it becomes his possession; but it is still your property, because the government thinks so, and is expected to take the car from him and give it back to you, by force if needed, once he is found.  If your tenant stops paying the rent and refuses to leave, the house is still your property because the government thinks so, and will help you get the guy out.    If a hacker empties you bank account, he may get possession of the money, but that money is still your property -- only because the government thinks so.  If you fail to pay taxes by the due date, you retain possession of that money, but it will be property of the government -- just because they think it is.

There is no way to define propeprty without reference to some government.  If there is no government, there is no property, only possession; and when something gets stolen from you, it becomes the thief's possession, and that is it.  YOU (and your friends) may think that it is still your property, but the thief (and his friends) will disagree; what then?  

By design, cryptocoins (as the libertarians see them) are meant to be impossible for any government (or any other entity) to take away from their possessors.  But then, by design, no government (or any other authority) can enforce any property rights on cryptocoins.  (Indeed, early adopters had hoped that the government would be unable even to discover who has possession of the coins; and now that bitcoin has been found to be inadequate in this aspect, they  are turning to more sophisticated "truly anonymous" altcoins.)  

Therefore, there is no concept of "property" in the realm of cryptocoins.  Only "possession".

The notion of "property" as distinct from "possession" is very old; it may have been invented when humans adopted agriculture and settled down, abandoning the "share the catch" economy of nomadic hunter-gatherers.  It has become such a basic feature of society that people seem to forget what makes it work.  

Do we really want to eliminate the concept of "property" with regards to money?
  
(PS. And then there is the misleading use of "possession" instead of "knowledge" when talking about keys; but that is another issue.)

[1714718658]

1714718658

[1714718658]

1714718658

[1714718658]

1714718658

[JorgeStolfi]

I have some sliver coins got stolen. Please teach me how I could recover them.

You go to the police and hope that they can catch the thief and get your coins back.

So just do the same in case your bitcoin is stolen.

Do you know of any case?

[adamstgBit]

Our favorite crazy crypto anarchist girl on alex jones's InfoWars

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there.  Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.

Jorge, here is a study of an important case involving the theft of bank notes and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  This case illustrates pretty clearly why fungibility of a currency takes precedence over being able to recover stolen currency.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952

Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property.   The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim. 

Ideally the same should happen in bitcoinland: if a hacker steals one bitcoin from you, and buys a megapizza with it, you should be able to ask the government to hunt down the hacker, and take one bitcoin (not THAT bitcoin), or equivalent dollars, from HIS possessions (not from the pizza parlor's possessions)  and return it to you.

But, in reality, you will not even be able to prove to the police that a theft took place.

[oda.krell]

['property' vs. 'possession' distinction]

Excellent summary, agreed on the main points.

But it's also at the core of why I am so happy to have seen Bitcoin emerged - it's at the center of a huge social experiment, the question: how much central guidance do we need or want vs. how much can we replace the authority with decisions based on personal responsibility.

The most hard core libertarians here are (at least in words) violently anti-government. They are also the ones who see Bitcoin absorbing basically the entire money supply. They do away with legal 'property' then, in your terms.

I don't follow their logic.

However, I also don't follow yours. In your view, only 'property' matters. 'Possession', which would be extensionally indistinguishable from 'property' if you would truly be the master of your own affairs, doesn't seem to play a role in your world. I know you're not a naive supporter of an all-powerful, purely well meaning government, so I'm sure you understand that there is value to raw possession of your capital (if for no other reason so you can send a donation to Wikileaks and not have it blocked by Paypal or Visa).

Which is why I'm interested in, and a supporter of Bitcoin: Not because I necessarily believe it will succeed, but because I want to find out if - and to what degree - it succeeds.

[spooderman]

Jorge just described cash.
And Alex Jones is just soooo retarded I can't watch.

[aminorex]

you will not even be able to prove to the police

unnecessary.  you prove it to a judge of appropriate jurisdiction.

you give away your affinity for a police state of arbitrary power in so many ways, Jorge.  for example, by asserting that you have property by virtue of the graces of the police and courts.  no.  property is an inalienable human right.  justly acquired property is yours regardless of the possessor.  enforcement by courts is inaccessible to most of the population.  for that reason we resort to securing our wealth by cryptography, which has negligible marginal cost, and is incorruptible.  if one should be conned into exposing oneself to vulnerability to theft, and a theft occurs, police and courts may be used, if funding is available, but only because of a failure of personal responsibility. it is now possible, for the first time, to avoid such failures in practice, thanks to crypto.

[giveBTCpls]

Pretty sure this wouldn't last for much longer. Imagine all the boat missers and big whales that want to get in Bitcoin because they aren't mentally retarded persons without the ability to see how important the BTC technology is and how disruptive it is. They will not risk letting the price go much lower.

[spooderman]

+1 aminorex. most property is kept indoors, behind a key of some sort. Easily broken, circumvented etc.

Cars get stolen, yet have locks.

Go troll a forum full of car manufacturers about not making their cars un-stealable. (They COULD, like put gps trackers in all of them that have to be paired with a phone number etc).

Bitcoin is the only legitimate intellectual property. Selection and remembrance of a number is all you need. It's so beautiful and all you want to do is bitch

[grappa_barricata]

Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there.  Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.

This is unsolvable. Please ponder about the definition of 'stolen' in a system where property is defined by 'knowledge of a key'.
There is no way to mathematically demonstrate that a transaction, for example, was fraudulent. Or that if two people know the same key then one is a rightful owner (whatever that means) and the other is not.

Precisely!

One fundamental flaw of  cryptocoins (that supportes consider a feature) is that they are intended to eliminate the notion of "property" for money, and leave only "possession" instead.

[digression about the difference between the concept of 'property' (legal ownership/control?) and 'possession' (de-facto ownership/control?)]

[realization of the central role of governments in permitting/determining ownership/control of 'resources' of their subjects]

[enlightenment about the fact that ownership/control, shared or individual, just exists]

Do we really want to eliminate the concept of "property" with regards to money?
  
(PS. And then there is the misleading use of "possession" instead of "knowledge" when talking about keys; but that is another issue.)

Let me know if i summarized your post incorrectly.

There is not much i can say about your reasoning, in fact you seem to come to a deeper understanding the more you think about this.
Your final question let me guess that you have not been introduced to the concept of strong-property.
And your PS let me guess that you are underestimating the powerful concept that 'knowledge is ownership/control' in bitcoin.

If i may add something is that bitcoin, if else, 'clarified this mess'. Now property (ownership/control) is knowledge of a key.

[NotLambchop]

This is a case of "not even wrong."
Property is a complicated concept, as rigidly defined as, oh, let's say "fairness."
The notion of property of property predates farming.  The kill of a hunting party, for instance, is that party's joint property.
Babies, right after learning "mama," learn "mine!"

The concept of property does not require a government, or even an outside authority, but force:  "Yeah, I took it from you, now it's mine.  Whatcha gonna do about it?"
This is a huge thing you guys are poking.

  ~NotLambchop the Pataphysician.

[adamstgBit]

look what happens when you put a coin in dry ice, so COOL!!!

[grappa_barricata]

Well said everybody. Kinda pleasant, with the Pataphysician and everything.

[abercrombie]

Our favorite crazy crypto anarchist girl on alex jones's InfoWars

When I first saw her video Bitocin Bitch, I figured she was probably some nerd's girlfriend that didn't know anything about crypto. 

But I saw more of her videos and she is so awesome and well spoken, plus she's Russian.   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[hmmmstrange]

['property' vs. 'possession' distinction]

Excellent summary, agreed on the main points.

But it's also at the core of why I am so happy to have seen Bitcoin emerged - it's at the center of a huge social experiment, the question: how much central guidance do we need or want vs. how much can we replace the authority with decisions based on personal responsibility.

The most hard core libertarians here are (at least in words) violently anti-government. They are also the ones who see Bitcoin absorbing basically the entire money supply. They do away with legal 'property' then, in your terms.

I don't follow their logic.

However, I also don't follow yours. In your view, only 'property' matters. 'Possession', which would be extensionally indistinguishable from 'property' if you would truly be the master of your own affairs, doesn't seem to play a role in your world. I know you're not a naive supporter of an all-powerful, purely well meaning government, so I'm sure you understand that there is value to raw possession of your capital (if for no other reason so you can send a donation to Wikileaks and not have it blocked by Paypal or Visa).

Which is why I'm interested in, and a supporter of Bitcoin: Not because I necessarily believe it will succeed, but because I want to find out if - and to what degree - it succeeds.

What in the world do you consider "violently"? I have yet to see any words that express any sort of violence, even from the anarchists. Most libertarians and anarchists hold the non aggression principle in high regards and just choose to ignore the state.

[Erdogan]

Our favorite crazy crypto anarchist girl on alex jones's InfoWars

Alex Jones starting to get it. Bullish! - so we probably go down!

[findftp]

There is no way to define propeprty without reference to some government.

You should try to take my silver coins.
My fists will define my property.


It's really hard to not put you on ignore...

[oda.krell]

['property' vs. 'possession' distinction]

Excellent summary, agreed on the main points.

But it's also at the core of why I am so happy to have seen Bitcoin emerged - it's at the center of a huge social experiment, the question: how much central guidance do we need or want vs. how much can we replace the authority with decisions based on personal responsibility.

The most hard core libertarians here are (at least in words) violently anti-government. They are also the ones who see Bitcoin absorbing basically the entire money supply. They do away with legal 'property' then, in your terms.

I don't follow their logic.

However, I also don't follow yours. In your view, only 'property' matters. 'Possession', which would be extensionally indistinguishable from 'property' if you would truly be the master of your own affairs, doesn't seem to play a role in your world. I know you're not a naive supporter of an all-powerful, purely well meaning government, so I'm sure you understand that there is value to raw possession of your capital (if for no other reason so you can send a donation to Wikileaks and not have it blocked by Paypal or Visa).

Which is why I'm interested in, and a supporter of Bitcoin: Not because I necessarily believe it will succeed, but because I want to find out if - and to what degree - it succeeds.

What in the world do you consider "violently"? I have yet to see any words that express any sort of violence, even from the anarchists. Most libertarians and anarchists hold the non aggression principle in high regards and just choose to ignore the state.

The exact phrasing was "... are (at least in words) violently anti-government."

The "at least in words" part clarifies that the next part, "violent", does not mean "physical violence". Maybe you prefer not to call non-physical "violence" violence. Maybe "aggressively anti-government" is more to your liking? I don't mind, choose whatever term you prefer.