Bitcoin Weirds Ownership
I've heard people state that The Bitcoin Protocol allows a world where human trust and laws are not necessary; the blockchain will handle proof-of-ownership. Yet these same people will be the first to denounce others who steal coins. I find this position inconsistent. If the blockchain proves ownership and anyone transfers coins to another address, then the blockchain is proving that the individual(s) with knowledge of the private key associated with that address owns the coins sent to that address.
Since I don't grant people a right to be wrong, and since I'm a charitable person who is willing to believe every individual's claims about what they believe, and since I'm a fan of the jerk philosophy of Overmanian Ethics, I have a few bones to pick with those individuals.
It boils down to this: if you want to encode ownership (both descriptive and normative) into the blockchain, or if you want to get rid of the normative version altogether, then you have to accept what the blockchain says as definitive even if you wish it weren't that way under pain of inconsistency.
Since I don't grant people a right to be wrong, and since I'm a charitable person who is willing to believe every individual's claims about what they believe, and since I'm a fan of the jerk philosophy of Overmanian Ethics, I have a few bones to pick with those individuals.
It boils down to this: if you want to encode ownership (both descriptive and normative) into the blockchain, or if you want to get rid of the normative version altogether, then you have to accept what the blockchain says as definitive even if you wish it weren't that way under pain of inconsistency.
The Quest for Purity
The problem with aspies, who are overrepresented in the voluntaryists, CS, and polymath groups, is that they generally appear to think that squishy human value judgements can be eliminated and the One Truth Formula of Ought™ can be found. This is, of course, a fool's errand because not only is there no such formula when dealing with the non-expectational form of ought (of course I can't prove a negative but c'mon - deep down inside you know what I'm saying is true), but even if such a thing were true, it wouldn't automatically be convincing so as to change the beliefs, desires, or behaviors of others.
But let's play the game for a minute and conveniently forget that ownership has a normative and descriptive definition (which is what ties people up in knots when they discuss the concept of self-ownership). Ownership in the bitcoin world means possession, specifically possession of private keys. It's not 9/10th of the law: in bitcoin it is the law... of math.
The Bitcoin Protocol doesn't care about how individuals come across private keys. They may have guessed the crappy brainwallet password you used, they may have been watching over your shoulder. All that is irrelevant to the protocol. If they possess the keys, then they own the bitcoins. To be fair, you both own it, but when those coins are transferred, they own the bitcoins and you no longer do. If you can guess or "steal" the keys then you gain ownership again. That's it. That's all there is. If you don't want trust or laws or norms grafted onto the Bitcoin system and which cannot be encoded in the protocol, then that's what you get. It doesn't mean you have to like losing such control, it just means that you can't consistently hold a belief about theft. And here's why...
But let's play the game for a minute and conveniently forget that ownership has a normative and descriptive definition (which is what ties people up in knots when they discuss the concept of self-ownership). Ownership in the bitcoin world means possession, specifically possession of private keys. It's not 9/10th of the law: in bitcoin it is the law... of math.
The Bitcoin Protocol doesn't care about how individuals come across private keys. They may have guessed the crappy brainwallet password you used, they may have been watching over your shoulder. All that is irrelevant to the protocol. If they possess the keys, then they own the bitcoins. To be fair, you both own it, but when those coins are transferred, they own the bitcoins and you no longer do. If you can guess or "steal" the keys then you gain ownership again. That's it. That's all there is. If you don't want trust or laws or norms grafted onto the Bitcoin system and which cannot be encoded in the protocol, then that's what you get. It doesn't mean you have to like losing such control, it just means that you can't consistently hold a belief about theft. And here's why...
Theft is Taking Something Which You Don't Own Without Permission
Let's take the most basic scenario which pisses people off. I guess a brainwallet someone is using and transfer coins to another address. Have I taken something without permission of someone who owns it? Yes. What have I taken? Control. But I am one of the owners too? How? Because I know the private key which, according to the bitcoin protocol, makes me an owner. Do I need to have permission from all owners before making a transfer? Maybe. But then if the individual who first was using the brainwallet would have to get my permission to transfer the coins since I knew the key also and would also be an owner. No theft has occurred so long as:
- any owner can transfer something they own without it being theft and
- my knowledge of the key makes me an owner per the bitcoin protocol and the (interpreted) words of those who believe the protocol can eliminate the need for trust, norms, and laws.
Desires and What I'm Not Trying to Do
Just because you no longer own the keys for the address to which coins have been transferred doesn't mean you have to like the state of affairs. It doesn't mean that you have to put up with the state of affairs either. But it does mean that if you take action against others because of "theft of bitcoins" you're not allowed by me to maintain the "all ownership is within the blockchain" mantra. If you do so, I reserve the ability to treat you like shit and as a subhuman because of it - not that I'll go out of my way to do so, just that I won't feel too badly if I do. If you don't care about either of those things, then go ahead and undermine everything it appears that bitcoin was set up to do by getting the law involved.
I'm not trying to justify people being jerks, though I'm not settled on guessing weak passwords being equivalent to "stealing" in the same sense that botnetting someone's machine is. Two metaphors spring to mind: one is using a metal detector on a beach to find where people buried their change, and the other is "mining people's laziness." Bitcoin mining is making guesses to find a hash, password cracking is pretty much the exact same process even if the intentions are different.
Rather, I'm trying to get people to own their values and own the implications of what they purport to believe.
Ownership is, has been, and probably always will be something that humans ascribe onto certain states of affairs. The blockchain might rightly be called a possession claim chain in this case, but claims are given weight by humans and that's definitely off chain.
I'm not trying to justify people being jerks, though I'm not settled on guessing weak passwords being equivalent to "stealing" in the same sense that botnetting someone's machine is. Two metaphors spring to mind: one is using a metal detector on a beach to find where people buried their change, and the other is "mining people's laziness." Bitcoin mining is making guesses to find a hash, password cracking is pretty much the exact same process even if the intentions are different.
Rather, I'm trying to get people to own their values and own the implications of what they purport to believe.
Ownership is, has been, and probably always will be something that humans ascribe onto certain states of affairs. The blockchain might rightly be called a possession claim chain in this case, but claims are given weight by humans and that's definitely off chain.
