Oh when he said that, he was asserting it, not just asking. He was very taken aback by Saif in that podcast episode, it was on the Bitcoin Standard Podcast I believe.
Bitcoin yield is just him finding funding to purchase more bitcoin per share, primarily by providing financial products in the money markets. It works, until it stops working. At some point it will be so hard to accumulate more money that Strategy will approach an asymptote beyond which others will always have the rest of the bitcoin. That's when the yield stops. It can keep going for a long time until then, and even when it stops, they will probably find ways to provide services to earn their keep, like more financial services, like protection against property damage, like insurance.
I say that ownership is granted by the possession of information necessary and sufficient to exclusively control a resource (the thing owned) in absence of a conflict. When conflict occurs, possession may become divorced from ownership temporarily, as the aggression causes a divergence from the libertarian counterfactual. In a free society, such divergences tend to be made whole after some time and tend to not happen extremely often in the first place.
The thread you shared here has a very different concept of property than I have, believing instead in the law of the jungle, might makes right.
Bitcoin is not designed as a complete libertarian solution. It cannot enforce the property rights that I talk about on its own, except in that it is one of the most basic tools for that job: having clearly defined rules and the power to enforce continued possession (which is useful in a free society as it makes property rights less complicated to enforce). We cannot use Bitcoin as our only tool to free the world. We need private defense firms, speech, guns, philosophy, ethical people, curious people, and a thriving culture of personal responsibility.
Ok that last part is again going into information as a class vs individual copies of the information. I said property is denoted by ownership of all the information sufficient to exclusively control the resource (resource could be a bitcoin UTXO).
If someone gets a copy of that information via coercion, like breaking into your house and finding your private key, you have now lost exclusive control of that UTXO. You hold your keys, but you no longer exclusively hold your keys. Further, the thief spins up a hot wallet with your key and initiates a transaction of all the bitcoin from that UTXO into a wallet that they exclusively possess. Now it is in someone else's exclusive possession.
In both of these scenarios after the coercion has taken place, the information sufficient to exclusively control the UTXO is no longer in your possession (because holding the keys doesn't grant you the ability to stop the thief after that point, unless you manage to kick his ass and stop him in the act, to initiate an emergency vault transaction, to enlist really competent police on your side who can guarantee recovery, or some such stuff, and even then, you are inconvenienced). This is the case because aggression has taken place (aggression is coercion, I use these words interchangeably; I also consider fraud a form of aggression). This is exactly what force is good for, resolving conflicts in favor of the person not aggressing. This is the proper use of legal force.
Showing page 1 of
1 pages
