Sure legal systems are nice, but they are not required for Bitcoin to work. That's evidenced by the widespread use of Bitcoin in darknet markets for example.
And what do you mean by "Bitcoin lacks these protections"? Bitcoin does not somehow preclude you from using the legal system. You can still sue people or report thefts...
>> Sure legal systems are nice, but they are not required for Bitcoin to work. That's evidenced by the widespread use of Bitcoin in darknet markets for example.
Widespread use by criminals does not mean that it is good for society at large. If Bitcoin is the preferred payment technology for ransoms, illegal drugs, and CSAM then maybe it needs to be regulated?
You've gone from claiming that "the only way to enforce artificial scarcity is through laws / legal systems and DRM", which is clearly false, to listing some of the drawbacks of Bitcoin... Yep, Bitcoin is not perfect.
>> "the only way to enforce artificial scarcity is through laws / legal systems and DRM", which is clearly false
Without laws or DRM, there is no digital scarcity.
The article itself states: "Digital goods aren’t naturally scarce. The marginal cost to replicate them is practically zero, as anyone who ever copy-and-pasted something can attest to. For this reason, digital scarcity used to be an oxymoron. If something is digital, it is just information, and information can be easily copied."
Bitcoin is neither legally mandated nor is it a universally enforceable DRM scheme unless you choose to use it as one.
It only has value if you value it. If I do not use Bitcoin because I think it is bad for the environment and bad for society, it does not impose any artificial restrictions on me.
Is Bitcoin then a form of self-imposed DRM? Perhaps.
And what do you mean by "Bitcoin lacks these protections"? Bitcoin does not somehow preclude you from using the legal system. You can still sue people or report thefts...