Topic: Discussion: Duplicate private keys - Who has Bitcoin ownership? (Read 3568 times)

A well thought out statement.  In our current world legal ownership is authorized by government but how would that be possible with bitcoin?  The moment bitcoin ownership comes by a third party authorization it stops being bitcoin.  And even if such a third party authorization comes about without any protocol changes it would be about as practical as tilting at windmills.

If there is no evidence that you acquired a private key by fraudulent means, should it be legal to transfer the bitcoins corresponding with that address?
What if I was the person that transferred bitcoins into that address? Shouldn't there be a way to get those bitcoins back? What do I need to do to prove that I owned the address or bitcoins (first)?

I Think more the Point of this thread, is if somebody generates a brainwallet with a known Word, and stores lots of BTC in this.
Then somebody other generates a brainwallet, but does use the same Word, by accident because he didnt know that the Word was "taken".
Then he suddenly finds lots of BTC in his account.

And propably, the question is if it would consistute "theft" to take this Money?


Generally, by law, its theft if you knew that it was illegit. But creating a brainwallet and finding lots of BTC in the account would be same as opening a bank account and finding lots of Money in the newly opened bank account.
Even if those Money belonged to lets say a previous customer, legally and technically, the Money is yours now since the bank account is in your name. The previous customer can impossibility prove that the Money in your new account is his, because he cannot prove that he didnt spent them, or got them when closing his bank account.


Its a wholy different thing if somebody by mistake puts Money in your account after it being opened, then by "condito indebiti", you are obliged by law to pay back the erronously paid Money.

Even in yesterday's society there exists analogs to this discussion.

One example that comes to mind is an organization or business that has a treasurer.  The checks drawn on the company accounts need the treasurer' signature.  They have the ability to empty the company account, convert it to cash, and consume it.  Only after a board vote would they actually have the right to do that.  The organization is the owner, not the treasurer holding the signatures.  This directly correlates to a treasurer holding private keys.  If the treasurer consumes the bitcoins, then the company has the right to sue the treasurer, just like in yesteryear.

You own what you control. What you can control (but haven't yet) is capacity for control--capital. It is immoral to control or demand capital from a naturally lawful owner. Bitcoin hinders infringement of natural law; it can be thought of as a just government with the strength to resist attack. A choice to use bitcoin is a preference to live according to natural law whereby you decide how your ownership may be transferred and your capital transformed. With bitcoin someone has the option to behave in a way that risks the loss of some or all their own capital (by sharing of a private key). Bitcoin lacks a legal loophole by which ownership and capital can be immorally demanded from another.

The borders maintained by bitcoin are the blockchain rather than a physical boundary. The law of bitcoin is the rules/code by which the blockchain is maintained. Thieves will attempt to invade the borders of bitcoin to infringe upon natural rights. The borders have thus far shown to be resistant attack. Should bitcoin ever succumb to attack, it is a natural right of man to use a safer alternative and adopt new laws.

Natural law allows immorality to exist, but immorality is sustained through the consumption of the capital that is the product of moral acts. There is no need to care about the lamenting of a would-be thief. Even to death, we each control our own capital now. Let the thieves hunger so that they learn to work for their sustenance by way of service to others.

Thank you Satoshi for changing the world!

+1

That's a vary interesting discussion and I thank the OP for raising the point. Don't want to be long, just a few points. In my opinion, as already said in this topic, the "control" or "ownership" point is quite clear, you can own AND control, can "legally" own but have no control, control even without a lawful ownership. In the last two points I particularly refer to a case of theft.

Now we have to see if when I say "legally" I can really mean legally or I should rather say "morally"... Can you prove your bitcoins were stolen? technically yes, in the same way you can prove the same thing for anything else. Even better in the Bitcoin environment, you can literally (from an investigator perspective) follow the trail of the money and see exactly were the money is. It's like finding the booty after a robbery! Mmmmmh, BUT

Even if you can legally prove those were your bitcoins, even if you can prove they were stolen and even if you see where they are.. you can't return them to the legitimate owner without catching the thief. Even if.. can you force him to reveal the private key? I remeber some time ago an article saying that in the UK a person could be obliged by lwa to reveal the password of an encrypted file, but what if he says he has lost it? What if he says he doesn't remember it?
Do you have any knowledge about these points?     

Oh well, sorry I didn't understand it was about preventing from theft (while retrospectively it seems quite obvious). My method is for timestamping the point 2° with a definition of ownership.

There are several constructions possible with Bitcoin and duplication of private keys where I can't grasp the moral or legal risk and thus your rights after losing control of bitcoins. I'd like to know how people think of "rights" and "ownership" in relation to private keys and bitcoins and hopefully, through following the logic, to see how these hold up in all the different scenario's. Instead of giving my own single scenarios, I'm trying to find some consistent definitions supported by the users here.

For example: Would you consider bitcoins an intangible asset? How about a financial asset? Or should it be whole new asset class altogether with corresponding laws? There are already laws regarding property (ownership rights) and how would you like to see these applied to the attributes of Bitcoin or would you like to see new laws passed?

The reason I'm asking about the opinion of the Bitcoin Foundation is because it might carry some weight with the regulators.




Ah, understood.

Not quite. My point is tangental to Santori's ownership/control analogy. I'm suggesting that once someone loses control of a bitcoin address, and the new controlling party spends those coins, then those coins should be able to be spent freely by subsequent owners. More specifically there should be no blacklist attempt to quarantine tainted coins.

I am not suggesting that acquisition of a bitcoin address by any means should be legal.

It's a simple concept. It's cash. You lose it, it's lost. It's stolen, it's gone. You find it, it's yours. It's not that hard, even from a legal standpoint. Just like with cash, it usually doesn't matter if you can prove the $20 someone else is holding is yours or not.

I'm starting to get curious why the  OP is trying to use surgical precision with the concept. Sounds like there's some digging going on to get at something.

They don't need to prove their ownership, they only need to empty the bitcoin from that address 

It the same as you losing your wallet with cash and id card in it, you find it back with cash removed

Hi,

I use to sometimes define my ownership of a bitcoin address by a very simple trick :

I create a brainwallet with a passphrase that cointains :

1° My first and last names

2° The purpose of this address

3° PGP-signed 2° and 3°


I can than prove with my PGP that I created that wallet. I can give the private key (or even the passphrase) to someone without them being able to prove their ownership.


Bhafner

We basically have a choice: Pre-emptive measures proving ones ownership, proven security measures while having ownership or penalties of some sort to discourage theft. the other options are math based proofs...

1) Establish clear ownership, pre-taint the coins with a tertiary encryption with verifiable proof of ownership that can only be removed when legal ownership is finished(spent at a store). The business would have the right and legal standing to demand that it be removed, simply by the fact they are a established legally run business.  They can be transferred too.

2) Defend that wallet with every safe guard available.

3) or some unknown penalty, in a way this option is the POW for those who infringe the rights of others.

I truthfully do not like the idea of bringing more coins into the pit of oblivion, there aren't that many and once they are lost they are lost permanently. The current system employed by Bitcoin of collective civil vigilance over the blockchain works, but... man it is expensive... 20,000 coins lost forever for fear of being exposed and what of those who do it to spite others? They have nothing to lose never to be exposed.

some sort of coin retrieval system has to be employed on a personal level to mitigate legal costs and lost revenue.

Do you mean to say that:

• The first to establish proof of control (knowledge of the private key) should have legal ownership?
• And without such proof, acquisition of the private key by any means should not be illegal?

Thanks for bringing that up.
I would like to hear people's opinion about where "ownership" and "control", "power" and "right" apply to the technical attributes of the Bitcoin protocol like "bitcoin" & "private key".


Both opinions & interpretations of the law based on those varied circumstances are welcome.

But do you think the analogy with bitcoins and physical objects will hold? As there are already separate laws for physical property and intellectual property. In a bitcoin-transaction you transfer the bitcoin to a new address without proof that the counterparty actually has control.

Under which circumstances do you gain or lose the rights to control bitcoins and how does this relate to ownership?

...and coin tainting being brought up again.  Seems that is a really hot topic, although I'm not sure whether this comment really expresses a favour for introducing coin taining (as opposed to just mentioning it).  Not sure why so many people think about it even though to me it seems basically completely at odds to what Bitcoin supporters on this forum should be interested in.  ("Should" not meaning I want them to but rather that I suspect they are when they found their way here.)

the coins always belong to the person who has control over the wallet; If the key is given to a significant other and they spend them, then the person who makes the first transaction had the power, but how do you prove it was them and not someone else?

If they are stolen then you lose control immediately after the transaction, and who is to say if they can ever be prosecuted if someone does not find the identity of the person who did the next transaction? the power has already been ceded cryptographically to the thief, they now have control to return or maintain the coins in limbo.

 Legally the coins are yours... but you have lost control over them. A completely different system would have to be used to return those coins back... like mandatory work camps to re-emburse the victims lost revenue and with Bitcoin that would be brutal, the coin keeps appreciating.

But don't worry, we are all smart people helping each other, in one way or another, we'll think of something and someone will figure out how to counter that until the perfect solution is found... good or bad.

The only way to counter it is to protect that private key any way you can. I can only think of one way to prosecute thieves; setting up a service to follow the coins and notify businesses of the theft so they can act on the information and deny any possibility of spending or benefiting from that theft.

As a matter of law, "ownership" and "control" are two distinct concepts.  Similarly, "power" and "right" are two distinct concepts. 

If I have car keys, I have control over the car associated with that key.  That is to say, I have the power to drive it around.  Whether I have ownership over the car depends upon a panoply of factual circumstances that are as varied as every day life.

Similarly, if I possess a private key, I have control over the coins associated with that key.  That is to say, I have the power to dispose of them.  Whether I have ownership over them depends upon a panoply of factual circumstances that are as varied as every day life.

I'm not sure how long a "duplicate" private key would last. If someone with nefarious intents "happened" upon a private key which was in-use, then I suspect the coins would be transferred to an address solely under the bad person's control.

Conversely, an honest person would attempt to alert the person. So, I think, there are two questions. First, what legally happens to the thief, and second, what happens if the thief spends the coins?

Interestingly, a legal challenge to the introduction of Scottish Banknotes in 1695 can help us answer the later question.

At issue was whether the recipient of a tainted banknote could be held responsible for previous illegal acts committed with the banknote. Essentially, does the holder of a banknote (bitcoin) have free and clear title to that note despite its previous history?

The Royal Bank of Scotland prevailed in the lawsuit. The legal argument essentially said that not providing title upon acceptance of a banknote "would be to render the Notes absolutely useless, and consequently would in a great Measure deprive the Nation of the Benefit of the Banks, which could hardly subsist without the Circulation of their Notes".

I would suggest the same for bitcoin. That the holder of the private key must have free and clear title to the bitcoins represented by the private key.

Of course, just like paper currency, the acquisition of a private key by fraudulent means should be illegal.

These are mostly legal questions.  Why should the bitcoin foundation have something to say about them?