>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?
It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".
>>fxtent+35
As a crypto unbeliever I hate this too. Legal enforcement legitimizes crypto as property. It expands the definition of property by institutionally conferring the status of "owned" to a functional configuration of bits distributed over thousands of computers. Do we have this concept for other things? yes. But I'd rather like to contract the space of property rather than expand it.
>>kelsey+Ob
6000 years ago, one could have ownership over the right to buy a still unborn goat at a certain price in the future. It's amusing to see these modern philosophies of trying to go back to a noble savage past that never was.
>>woah+cP
Likewise it's fascinating to me to see today an assumed, "expansion of property and its financialization are natural progressions of human societies." This factoid is itself baked into the fabric of our current society and presents itself as assumed knowledge. In reality no such natural progression exists any more than people believe that the universe is just, or that nature is cruel.