Try enforcing your property rights without resorting to the state in exactly the same way you would with a standard copyright mark.

It's just playing make-believe stateless society. nostr:note1072u4n66n9km4wvhmw0czg0xcgdef6j8cp34hvj0tc4xne4f64yqx4wq2s

We are not born as blank slates.

Also: I'd like to see someone try and enforce their property rights, without resorting to very expensive lawyers and courts -- assuming you can even bring a claim in the attendant jurisdiction of the rights-violator. Then I'll be impressed. Until then, an NFT adds literally zero utility to a standard copyright mark and proof of prior art. The argument of course, is the existence of a liquid secondary market. But what the hell kind of secondary market can sustain, absent those guarantees?

"Digital tulips".

I still think NFTs and NFT-like things are silly ideas. Whether they're called "inscriptions", "digital deeds", or "bobs". And the blockchain used to secure them is of no consideration to my argument.

If I ever see compelling utility, I'll be open to changing my mind, and I'll let y'all know.

I know many people who have come to bitcoin, myself included, and maintained pretty stable political views throughout the process. Which is why I suggest this belief could be a selection effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Well, I understand bitcoin very deeply and I don't think that way. I talk to many prominent bitcoiners -- including some core devs -- that don't think that way. So the empirical evidence that people who have convinced themselves of this are echo-chambering and part of a self-selection effect is actually quite high, in my opinion.

I'm not arguing that people would express different time preferences in different circumstances. If we didn't, that would not be conducive to survival. My objection is to the idea that there's a sort of "spiritual awakening" people will have once they understand bitcoin which will shift them towards a more anarchistic worldview and disciplined, low time preference behavior.

I actually think this is quasi-religious in the way some people talk like that.

It is also just true that people's time preference drifts lower as we age and mature. Which is why I might push back on comparing ourselves to our younger selves as proof, here.

I don't believe our brains are blank slates. I do think many personality traits are genetic, yes. The evidence for this is high. Many studies have been done on identical twins, who were separated at birth, for instance -- and these studies have consistently shown shared behavioral traits that can't be explained by random chance in the samples.

But it doesn't follow from that, I think we should engage in eugenics. That's an insane leap.

And if any of us returned to that state, by environmental favors or turn of fortune, the luxury of saving for the future would evaporate. At a certain lack of income, regardless of whether your money is deflationary, stable or inflationary, is going to demand high time preference behavior as a necessity of subsistence.

This has all been extensively researched to look at baselines in people. See: Stanford marshmallow experiment, etc.

Your environment, living conditions and external incentives affect your time preference, yes. Like, if you think an asset you're sitting on -- say bitcoin -- is going to be worth 100x in the near future, that is going to affect your time preference, yes. But what if it didn't? What if you didn't believe it was going to go up? Would you have equally lower time preference?

I can't even begin to understand how you think I'm advancing a eugenics argument, so I'm not even going to try to argue the contrary argument, since I have no grounding upon which to do so.

Based on what, that isn't a priori reasoning?

Yes. People aren't going to want to hear this, but the reason there's so many bitcoin-libertarian-Austrian types talking about how wine people learn about bitcoin, they will awaken to the possibility of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility stems from a selection effect and echo chamber effect.

I think humans are pretty predisposed to high time preference behavior, on average. To the extent we have low time preference behavior happening systematically, are features of incentives built by organized societies, and are a little more top down in nature than people want to admit.

No it's not.

I think if the US, China, Russia or India, at the scale of these economies and state power, undertook a concerted attack, they could make serious trouble.

I'm not saying bitcoin wouldn't adjust and survive the attack. But they could inflict serious pain on the ecosystem, at the very least.