[lottin]

The issue isn't that blockchains lack an automated enforcement of property rights, but that property rights are not enforceable at all (either by an automated system or by courts of justice). Why? Because in order to enforce property rights it is necessary that some authority have the power to seize assets from one person and hand them to another person. Blockchains are designed specifically to prevent that.

Cash doesn't have this problem, because it's a physical object and physical objects can be seized. You seem to be making the point that because sometimes cash is stolen and courts aren't unable to recover it this means that somehow property rights don't apply to cash?

[dkshdkjshdk]

My point is that property laws apply equally to cash and to (so called) blockchain assets (and to many other types of assets): if you are within the court's jurisdiction, it can always compel you to give them whatever asset you supposedly stole from someone. If the thief somehow makes that impossible (e.g. hid the money, or hid the key that controls your blockchain assets), then the judge will make the thief's ass rot in jail.

If you are not within the court's jurisdiction, then it is powerless, yes. But that applies equally to cash, blockchain assets or any asset, really.

> The issue isn't that blockchains lack an automated enforcement of property rights, but that property rights are not enforceable at all (either by an automated system or by courts of justice). Why? Because in order to enforce property rights it is necessary that some authority have the power to seize assets from one person and hand them to another person. Blockchains are designed specifically to prevent that.

Blockchains are not designed specifically for that, it's just part of the feature set (if they are decentralized): things cannot be arbitrarily seized. It's a feature, not a bug. The court can seize the assets, but they have to get to the person that has the assets in their posession (through a key), just like for any other asset (i.e. they have to find the asset/key first, or the person that knows where the asset is).

Also, note that blockchains can't prevent a court from jailing you until you "cough up" the assets you stole, if you are within the court's jurisdiction, just like it works for any other asset.

> Cash doesn't have this problem, because it's a physical object and physical objects can be seized.

Yes, and physical objects can also be hidden. How do you seize the thief's loot, then, if it's hidden? Well.. you put him in jail until he coughs up where he hid the loot. Same with crypto assets: "until you cough up the key, you'll be in jail, and your own assets will be liquidated to cover your theft". Simple. How does a blockchain prevent that?

> You seem to be making the point that because sometimes cash is stolen and courts aren't unable to recover it this means that somehow property rights don't apply to cash?

You seem to be making the point that, because sometimes it might be difficult for a court to recover "crypto assets" from a thief, somehow property rights stop existing and don't apply to such assets, and courts become powerless (because "blockchain magic sprinkles"?). Many "crypto people" would like that to be true, but it really isn't.

Blockchains may complicate the work of courts and law enforcement (the same way that the use of cash in drug transactions complicates the work of courts and law enforcement), but that's not the same as saying that "property rights/laws" don't apply to "blockchain assets" (or cash).

EDIT: And, furthermore, because the fact that "blockchain transactions" are permanently recorded and readily available, unlike "cash transactions", it might even be easier to prove the theft in court. How would you prove to a court that the money that is in someone's posession has been pickpocketed from you? Seems more complicated to me, when there probably isn't going to be any register of it (assuming there's no CCTV around).

EDIT2: Also, note that some blockchain assets can be (and have been) centrally and arbitrarily seized by (e.g.) US courts, if they want, as long as the entity that controls the token is within US jurisdiction. Here's an example of Coinbase/Centre, which is within US jurisdiction, blacklisting (i.e. seizing, effectively) 100 000 USDC (i.e. ~100 000 USD) from a thief/hacker, due to a court order or some collaboration with law enforcement: https://cryptobriefing.com/100000-usdc-blacklisted-highlight...

[lottin]

If it's true that blockchain assets can be seized by courts, it should be pretty easy to find hundreds of cases of such seizures. We have plenty of documented cases of pickpockets that have been arrested and charged with theft, something that should be very rare because according to you it's nearly impossible to prove that a pickpocket has stolen cash or other random items from a member of the public. And yet how many documented cases do we have of courts having seized blockchain assets? Very, very few. The only one that you mention is not even a seizure, is it? Not to mention USDC is not a normal blockchain asset, being centrally issued, and therefore controlled by a single entity.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> If it's true that blockchain assets can be seized by courts, it should be pretty easy to find hundreds of cases of such seizures.

Well, then... I guess you are right and property rights simply don't apply to blockchain assets. What else can I say? I even sent you a link where US courts/law enforcement explicitly compelled a US company to seize (stolen) blockchain assets... not much more I can say.

Furthermore, if you want more examples of seizures of blockchain assets (and, yes, you will find them, if you look for them), feel free to look them up yourself. I mean, how hard can it be to google "crypto seizure"?

> We have plenty of documented cases of pickpockets that have been arrested and charged with theft, something that should be very rare because according to you it's nearly impossible to prove that a pickpocket has stolen cash or other random items from a member of the public.

Unless you catch him red-handed... yes, it is difficult to prove that the pickpocket stole the money (and from you, specifically). The overwhelming majority of pickpocketing "events" are not caught red-handed and, thus, go unpunished.

Pickpocketers tend to be caught more often because they are more exposed and do it frequently (and often in the same places), over and over again. But because pickpocketers are caught more often than hackers, does it mean that property laws apply to pickpocketers and not hackers? No, it just means that (maybe) those laws are more difficult to enforce: not that they don't exist or apply.

> And yet how many documented cases do we have of courts having seized blockchain assets? Very, very few.

[citation needed]

Seriously... did you even try to google for "crypto seizure" before saying this?

> The only one that you mention is not even a seizure, is it?

Yes, it is (effectively). The entity that issues the (100% USD backed) USDC token basically destroyed/blocked forever the 100 000 USD that were in the hackers token and then minted brand new 100 000 USDC tokens to replace them (but, obviously, didn't send those to the hacker). Effectively, they seized the tokens: they moved 100 000 USDC from the hackers wallet to their own (in practice).

Furthermore, this was something done in collaboration with US courts/law enforcement, so... clearly, US courts/law enforcement disagree with your assessment that property rights don't apply to blockchain assets. Make of that what you will.

> Not to mention USDC is not a normal blockchain asset, being centrally issued, and therefore controlled by a single entity.

Ah, yes... the "no true scotsman" fallacy. I like that one. What makes USDC not a normal blockchain asset? It is an asset, that exists on a blockchain (or, several, actually), that can be easily (and in a decentralized/permissionless) way be used just like any other asset on (e.g.) Ethereum (you can lend, borrow, buy, sell, exchange it, without anyone's prior permission). The only particularity about it is that it is centrally managed/controlled (and that entity that manages it can, if compeled by a court, seize it arbitrarily, as it has happened before): but that doesn't make it "not a normal blockchain asset"... not all blockchains (or blockchain assets) are decentralized.

USDC is currently the 8th biggest blockchain asset (by both market cap and daily trade volume), but I guess (according to you and for some unspecified reason), it's not a "normal" blockchain asset. Sure... let's ignore the fact that, if you look at the top 20 blockchain assets by market cap, at least 4 of them are completely under the control of a single entity.

"Blockchain" doesn't imply "decentralized blockchain" and "crypto assets" doesn't imply "decentralized unseizable crypto assets". But, even if it did... does that make property rights simply not apply, just because it may cause a bit of inconvenience when it comes to enforcement? No. And US courts/law enforcement, at least, seem to agree with my assessment.

[lottin]

This isn't an example of a blockchain asset being seized by a court order, no matter how hard you try to twist it.

You said that a "court can always compel a person to give out their keys under the threat of force". All you have to do, in order to prove your point, is find half a dozen instances in the entire world of a courts that have compelled a person to give out their keys. Then we'll know that you're right, and that blockchain security is a sham.

Until then, and given the complete lack of evidence that this is happening on a regular basis, we have to assume that blockchain assets can't be seized, under normal circumstances, by courts, with the same ease and effectiveness that other assets can be seized with.