[yoshyosh]

And that last statement is where all the magic is happening. Currently your statement is true, but in the future that's what changes.

My money that is stored in some bank's DB is not on my local computer, but I sure hope it's mine. In some countries they aren't so lucky and it's exactly as you say, the money doesn't belong to them.

[nybble41]

> My money that is stored in some bank's DB is not on my local computer, but I sure hope it's mine.

You have a contract with your bank which says that they owe you a certain amount of money based on your past interactions. That contractual claim against the bank is what you actually own. The number in their database is just a summary of those interactions. Just see what happens when the bank messes up and enters a larger number in their database than what the contract says they owe you: The DB is not authoritative; the contract is.

Physical possession is not, of course, a requirement of ownership, though it certainly helps.

There is also a difference between owning specific property, such as the contents of a safe deposit box, and an entitlement to be paid according to the terms of a contract. In a very real sense, until you make that demand for a withdrawal in accordance with the contract the actual money belongs to the bank, and as a depositor you are merely one of the bank's creditors, just as you do in fact own your home even while it's serving a collateral for a mortgage and could be claimed by the bank if you fail to keep up with the payments.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Currently your statement is true, but in the future that's what changes.

You can chose to let others do your computing for you, but don't be surprised when they want to charge you for it.

>> My money that is stored in some bank's DB is not on my local computer, but I sure hope it's mine.

I trust my bank to hold my money because there are legal protections in place to protect against bad behavior. I can sue them if they violate the laws that protect me.

What can be done if someone steals your cryptocurrecy?

[roughly]

> You can chose to let others do your computing for you, but don’t be surprised when they want to charge you for it

Computing for yourself isn’t free either, you just paid the bulk of the costs up front.

One of the areas of decentralized computing that’s actually interesting to me - and I mean this in the idealized version, not whatever cloudflare’s thing is - is the idea of being able to “burst” compute when I need additional power. The fixed cost of having a personal machine capable of anything I might want (note: I might want - I’m an outlier, I know most people’s needs are met by the most rudimentary toaster available) is remarkably high compared to the cost of my average compute needs - being able to “rent” the excess could be both cheaper and less wasteful on the mean.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Computing for yourself isn’t free either, you just paid the bulk of the costs up front.

True, but I control the computers in question. The decentralized web is more a question of who controls what and what they can do. Cost does definitely come into play, but to a lesser extent.

>> the idea of being able to “burst” compute when I need additional power. >> The fixed cost of having a personal machine capable of anything I might want is remarkably high compared to the cost of my average compute needs - being able to “rent” the excess could be both cheaper and less wasteful on the mean.

Again, the larger part of the argument is control and decentralization. I completely agree that cloud computing is useful, especially when you have computing needs that change elastically and you are aware of the limitations of renting storage space or computing time on someone else's computers.

My concern about Web3 computing is where my local computing capabilities are reduced and I would need to rely on hundreds of computers owned and controlled by other people to get capabilities that are not worth the opportunity cost to me.

[CryptoPunk]

>>What can be done if someone steals your cryptocurrecy?

Not much, but at least you don't have to:

* ask a bank's permission, or

* divulge trade secrets, including private investment strategies, to a bank's employees, to meet the bank's AML "source of income" disclosure requirement

To gain access to banking services. Truly owning your own assets, with no dependence on others, has its benefits.

[vienarr]

> I trust my bank to hold my money because there are legal protections in place to protect against bad behavior. I can sue them if they violate the laws that protect me.

I don't think it would be that easy in third-world country or dictatorial government or country in wars

[thesuperbigfrog]

Agreed. Legal protections only work where rule of law works.

[rhn_mk1]

Money is a really bad example, in that its utility/value is defined by consensus of people who are not you. If the market for $currency crashes, your money is not worth anything, regardless of where it is. If no one wants to do business with you, your money is worthless even if you hold it.

The concept of "mine" is not well defined in money. Perhaps the proof of having a debt can be in your hands, but the debt itself (=money) is a contract between parties, and owned as much by you as the society.

So I'm not really sure what point your example illustrates.