[rollcat]

All ownership (digital or not) is nothing but a social contract. The cryptocurrency (or normal currency) exists because enough people agree to recognise it.

You can buy and own a domain name. If trust in DNS is violated, we'll have much bigger problems.

[TekMol]

Owning a token means you can perform certain actions on a distributed system. No social contract needed. You own the token by owning a secret key which gives you the power to move it.

It's like owning a key to a door. It gives you the power to lock and unlock the door. No social contract needed.

You can not own a domain. You can only pay a registrar to have them talk to a registry. You then are at the mercy of both. Use the HN search tool to read an endless amount of horror stories of people who lost domains and sometimes decades of work because of this.

[rollcat]

The distributed network exists because we collectively agree to host the nodes, and because we put trust in that network, and in its supply chain (application, OS, hardware, electricity, clay, etc). Ownership is built on that trust - exactly the same as your ownership of a domain name is built on the trust in the registrar, ICANN, root name servers, and so on.

Suppose a hypothetical scenario, where a malicious actor sneaks in a bug into the node's code, that causes the requests signed by your key to be rejected, and the code gets deployed to the majority of the network. Your key/token becomes effectively worthless.

Suppose a (much less hypothetical) scenario, where a state decides to outlaw the technology, which puts node operators/users at a legal risk, disincentivizing the use of the network locally, and diminishing its value globally. You still "own" the token, but it's that much less useful.

There are different considerations, trade-offs, threat models, failure modes, horror stories, but nothing about ownership in a decentralised network is _fundamentally_ different - it's still built on trust.

[mathnmusic]

A door-and-lock is a single-agent system and therefore isn't a good analogy. Money always needs social consensus. In a blockchain, you're relying on others agreeing on a certain history. That society can decide to disagree with you and consider a different history as truth. It has happened multiple times on Ethereum and Bitcoin both.

[LegitShady]

its not a door. It's a number on a blockchain. It has no inherent value and no inherent function. It's just a number on a blockchain.

Everything else is tulipmania.

[TekMol]

If digital assets have no value, then you are probably fine with having your hn handle, your bank account and your phone number deleted?

The value of digital property is widely accepted for decades now.

What crypto adds is that you can hold the key to your property yourself. So others can not move or delete it against your will.

[LegitShady]

I don't care about hackernews handle at all. Bank account is not a blockchain number, nor is my phone number..

>The value of digital property is widely accepted for decades now.

You're conflating all digital 'property' with blockchain bullshit, and also pretending my bank account is a digital property.

>What crypto adds is that you can hold the key to your property yourself. So others can not move or delete it against your will.

Society need not support your want for crypto, especially where it harms society and reduces its ability to control financial regulation.