[lmm]

> And just as many people prefer cash over electronic payments. It still doesn't mean that cash is, in any way, fatally flawed.

I don't think that's true. Someone asking to be paid in cash is inherently suspicious (at a minimum they're probably evading tax, if not an outright scammer).

> Of course they have to go to court to see their property rights enforced. Rights/laws are always enforced by humans, not by automated systems.

Right, which eliminates the big selling point of bitcoin. Code isn't and can't be law, because law enforcement will enforce the actual law rather than the code.

> Even if that was the case (and, as I pointed out, it's not clear that it is the case... a court can always compel a person to give out their keys under the threat of force, as long as that person is within their jurisdiction, regardless of blockchain magic sprinkles), that would make blockchain assets more valuable (since that means they can't be easily seized from you against your will), and not less.

I don't think that's true. If things are difficult to protect from theft then that makes them less valuable, e.g. a second-hand bicycle in a high-crime city is worth less than the same bicycle in a country that has bicycle registration and strong law enforcement. Decent people generally prefer to live under a legal system that returns stolen property to its rightful owners rather than "possession is the whole of the law"; yes, there is a risk that the courts might wrongly decide that my property was stolen from someone else and take it from me and give it to them, but you have to weigh that against the risk of my property actually being stolen by someone else.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> Someone asking to be paid in cash is inherently suspicious (at a minimum they're probably evading tax, if not an outright scammer).

Maybe to you, but not to me. First, not all countries have widespread low-cost electronic payment systems and not all people have access to those (or banking services, in general). Second, I rather pay with cash just for the fact that it saves me on transaction fees. Third, a vendor might not have a working terminal... does that make the vendor a tax evader or a scammer?

I think your comment may apply in some places/cultures, but it certainly doesn't apply to all places/cultures.

I, for one, certainly don't want to live in a world where cash doesn't exist and I'm forced to have every single transaction I do be recorded. Your mileage may vary, but you should accept that there isn't a consensus: different people have different opinions on this.

> Right, which eliminates the big selling point of bitcoin. Code isn't and can't be law, because law enforcement will enforce the actual law rather than the code.

I'm not sure it does. Bitcoin never claimed to want to replace law or law enforcement, or to be immune from the application of law by courts and law enforcement. The proof is in the pudding... people are using/buying it, so there must be some sort of selling point that hasn't been eliminated.

> Decent people generally prefer to live under a legal system that returns stolen property to its rightful owners rather than "possession is the whole of the law"; yes, there is a risk that the courts might wrongly decide that my property was stolen from someone else and take it from me and give it to them, but you have to weigh that against the risk of my property actually being stolen by someone else.

Sure... and I did not say otherwise. My point is that property rights apply equally to blockchain assets as to other assets, and thus can be seized by a court. Are there cases where a court is unable to seize someone's cash or blockchain assets (or any other assets that can be "hidden")? Yes. Does that make property laws not apply? Not really.

Besides, there are (very popular) crypto assets that can be (and have been) centrally and arbitrarily seized, such as USDC. If someone is concerned about the scenarios you describe, then they can use blockchain assets that (e.g.) are 100% within US jurisdiction (assuming you live in the US) and be sure that their local courts can always "do something about it" if shit hits the fan.

Just like with cash, with crypto assets "posession is [also] nine-tenths of the law": by default, we assume that whoever is in control of something is their legitimate owner (and, just like "in real life", with cash, whoever is in the posession of it can use it for transactions). If that is not the case (i.e. if your property rights have been infringed on somehow), then, as always and as with any other asset, you have to go to a court of law to get "things fixed".

TL;DR: My overall point is... when it comes to "property rights", crypto assets and cash are quite similar... they can complicate enforcement, but they don't make the rights themselves void or completely unenforceable.

[lmm]

> Third, a vendor might not have a working terminal... does that make the vendor a tax evader or a scammer?

Often, yes. Among New York taxis it's notorious - a driver who tells you their card machine isn't working is probably scamming you in other ways, and will probably decide it actually is working if you tell them you have no cash on you. More generally I've had more than one vendor tell me "oh, in that case I have to include the tax" if I ask to pay by card.

> you should accept that there isn't a consensus: different people have different opinions on this.

Different people have different opinions, but the trend is pretty consistent IMO. E.g. bearer bonds are almost completely unknown these days.

> Bitcoin never claimed to want to replace law or law enforcement, or to be immune from the application of law by courts and law enforcement.

Bitcoin itself may not have claimed that (the white paper talks about making transactions irreversible explicitly to avoid the need to mediate disputes, but I guess that's not strictly the same thing), but certainly many Bitcoin advocates did.

> people are using/buying it, so there must be some sort of selling point that hasn't been eliminated.

It's good for buying drugs online, it's good for ransomware, it's ok for speculation. I don't see anything that's a net positive for society being done with it.

> Sure... and I did not say otherwise. My point is that property rights apply equally to blockchain assets as to other assets, and thus can be seized by a court. Are there cases where a court is unable to seize someone's cash or blockchain assets (or any other assets that can be "hidden")? Yes. Does that make property laws not apply? Not really.

I think it's fair to say that property rights apply more weakly to assets that are harder for courts to return to their rightful owner. And yes, I agree that that amounts to saying that property rights for cash are weaker than property rights for property that has a stronger system of ownership records (though those of bitcoin are probably even weaker than those of cash, since courts are even less effective at returning stolen bitcoin than stolen cash in practice).