😬 
Discussion
How can one define ownership as a physical construct?
Trust, don't verify apparently 😂
if you can defend possession, you own it.
An the underlying system that supports this ownership? Can we defend that?
trusted 3rd parties are security holes
OK, but I trust nobody will fork bitcoin with consensus to turn bitcoin into into a blockchain... Or bank, or whatever you can imagine besides pure money...
Are they third parties?
what? its already a blockchain...?
people can make any fork they like.
Are you stating that in your mind bitcoin isn't pure money?
I'm saying I have no idea what you're talking about because you're posting unrelated sentences
Play this loop out recursively. If you do, you should find people as an underlying layer correct? If that is apparent then within the mind is the trusted third party. If that is the case, then if the answer isn't "Bitcoin is pure money", the you found a security hole.
why put a head on top of the head you already have?
So that you can see the perspective of the wall this guy is talking to.
100%. It's a dividing line between the coward and the sloth, and we are outnumbered IMHO.
It goes a bit deeper, but you get the idea. Let me provide an example, and I'd love a stealman argument against this perspective.
OK I will, and it's the same response I've given to other posts by OP.
If we are playing a hawk vs dove game, then it's a dividing line between the coward and the sloth, and we are outnumbered by the sloth. An act of dove is an attack on both parties.
It goes a bit deeper, but you get the idea. Let me provide an example if you read the thread below, and I'd love a stealman argument against this perspective.