zlacker

>>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
> 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.

9/10ths of law is property ownership. I find hilarious that anyone would want less of this concept, not more. My interpretation is that crypto enthusiasts want the "trust of the crowds" not a centralized government. Which doesn't mean the trust system becomes contracted per se, but rather under a different set of rules (i.e. purely direct democracy vs centralized republic).

>>mbesto+9p1
It's simply that people who begin thought experiments with one island, two people, and three cows tend to reach absolutely unhinged conclusions about how the society should work. Not wanting to live in a world governed by those systems is why I intent to frame them as such. Before we get to the part where some responder concludes, "you should go live in the woods then", I'd rather they did.

Another way of putting it is this. Expansions in the legal concept of property are consequently expansions in the dominion of the state.

>>kelsey+ls1
> consequently expansions in the dominion of the state.

So your concerns are about restriction of liberties? or society moving away from small government?

Are you a supporter of cryptocurrencies?

>>BLKNSL+QT1
I'm saying that state legitimation of crypto conferring ownership status is an expansion of state power. State power should not be expanded.

>>kelsey+F02
I don't follow. The state recognizes I own something, therefore the state power has been expanded? I'd argue the opposite. Virtually everything else I own, the state doesn't really recognize is fully mine, but rather they think they own a piece of the profits on. Currently the state thinks they own part of others' crypto (tax on profits payable in fiat only though!), so to relinquish that ownership is a step up. The state legitimation of crypto as being owned by me means they've ceded power of private property to private entities, rather than it being public or unrecognized property. Since the state recognizes it's all mine, I don't owe the government any of it and as full owner I can unmolested exercise control of my private property without interference by government.

When the government steps in, it's not usually to say _you_ own it but rather _they_ own part of it. If you own it of course you owe them nothing of it. Government finally getting their greedy hands out of private property would be a huge step up.

This is even more obvious when I present it this way. Yesterday there's a cow in my yard. The next day my neighbor says he recognizes the cow as my cow. The neighbor has ceded over power of the cow, now recognizing I have full control of the cow and they're removing any claim of power they had. It's a contraction or break even of, not expansion, of my neighbor's power.

Ownership means you have full control over your crypto. Paying taxes on it means you don't have ownership, but rather partial ownership. If the state is conferring you full ownership, it would appear their power is decreasing. If the state is taxing crypto, then they're taking away ownership status and instead attributing some of it to themselves -- THEN it's an expansion of power.